Free Speech Follies By Stanley Fish Essay

In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and

It’s impossible to censor all disagreeable sides because all that would be left is a bland “politically correct” society and that’s an unattainable goal because it’s not possible to please everyone. In the end, there will always be someone who disagrees with someone else about something and they will indeed use their First Amendment right to free speech to voice these grievances.

After reading the transcript of the speech, “The Spirit of Liberty”, given by federal judge for more than 50 years, Learned Hand, who served most of the time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, my idea of what it means to be an American was slightly shifted. The statement made by Hand which really caught my attention was, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes.” I agree with Hand in the sense that the constitution can only serve purpose to our country if we, as Americans, learn to be truly accepting.

This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a

Freedom of speech is an essential part of our democratic government. The only way that the truth can be brought to the fore is when there is a forum where ideas and opinions can be openly expressed. However, there is a strong support of censorship when people start mentioning extremely offensive opinions. Should the freedom of speech be limited in this case? The answer is “No”. “If liberty means anything at all,” writes George Orwell, “it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” (Wikipedia, 2016) If

The right to free speech is one of the most precious rights an individual has as a citizen of the United States of America. This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind and give their opinions of what they think should happen. These rights have been questioned and debated throughout history, and have produced extremely positive things in a lot of cases. The controversy of these rights are not secluded to one era of time; they have been questioned many different times, in many different ways. In modern times, people are always protesting something and in the colonial times it was the same. People wanted their voice to be heard and as long as it is done in a peaceful manner it is legal now, but it resulted in punishment for the colonists. People have never wondered whether or not these rights should exist, the questions involve whether there should be limits or not. I believe that there should be limits on what you can and can’t say, just like there is a limit on what you can and can’t do.

Under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause a public flag burning in protest of a recently enacted law would protected because it is a form of expression (Hall, 2015). The Supreme Court has recognized more than just spoken words are protected rights under the Free Speech Clause, and freedom of expression through acts are included, so flag burning is a protected right (Hall, 2015). Next, an advertisement for potato chips found on a billboard is also protected under the Free Speech Clause. The advertisement is considered visual and written expression, which is a protected form of expression (Hall, 2015). Last, the placing of a hand over one’s heart while the national anthem is played is another form of nonverbal expression (Hall, 2015).

Censorship has been a touchy topic over the past few years. Everyone has their own opinion on the topic, but the fact is censorship is way more damaging than people may notice. First off, the definition of censorship is to restrain, block, and censor ideas and information that some may find offensive. The basic definition of censorship completely violates the First Amendment. We, as Americans, have the right to Freedom of Speech. Censorship blocks that by blocking anything some may find offensive. It’s not fair because they’re blocking out how people feel/think just because someone found it “offensive” or wrong. It completely contradicts the First Amendment. People have the right to know about the world and what’s happening. Keeping the

Freedom of speech is a right that is meant to be interpreted according to how it is written in the constitution. Susan Jacoby makes a valid argument that the first amendment should be interpreted strictly on how it is written despite the vulgar that content that may be displayed. The author even goes as far as to saying pornography, content the author highly disapproves, is a valid point that applies under the first amendment. Moreover, the first amendment should be upheld at all costs despite the content that may be presented. The first amendment should be strictly interpreted, furthermore, federal courts should thoroughly evaluate truly controversial topics that may arise in the future.

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also

Separate from any concerns over bias, as the article had been written as a clear editorial, I was completely unsure of whether it was appropriate to broadcast opinions that could cause problems for other people. However, I couldn’t stop thinking that was wrong. Even if the entire system had been disrupted, even a system as small as school spirit and sports games, it went against our duty to better the world when we hid behind the majority opinion. It’s our responsibility to keep challenging, and pointing out, and acting against what was broken in the hope that it would become better. We kept publishing those controversial articles, every issue without fail, in an endeavor to make those around us consider what we have to gain when we do not resign ourselves to

Let’s face it- today, the sensitivity of America has reached its peak. Any individual with an opinion that deviates from the norm is thrown into the social blender, scrutinized, and bashed into a pulp by all others. Express a liberal viewpoint in a room full of Republicans and suddenly you’re an ass. Express a Republican viewpoint in a room full of liberals and suddenly you’re the elephant in the room. At a time like this, you must filter your every move. If you draw a picture of Mohammad or express your anti-gay marriage viewpoint or- god forbid- wear a T-shirt with GIRLS on it, you are an immediate target for an onslaught of criticism at the societal level. How dare you practice the American right to free speech! Did you really think

The founders of the United States government tried to protect our liberty by assuring a free press, to gather and publish information without being under control or power of another, in the First Amendment to the Constitution. We are not very protected by this guarantee, so we concern ourselves on account of special interest groups that are fighting to change the freedom of expression, the right to freely represent individual thoughts, feeling and views, in order to protect their families as well as others. These groups, religious or otherwise, believe that publishing unorthodox material is an abuse of free expression under the First Amendment. As we know, the Supreme Court plays an important role in the subject of free speech and

Imagine yourself in a world where you could not say what you wanted, or express how you feel. Everyday thoughts that are said out loud like, “Man, this lesson is dumb” were no longer permitted to be anything other than thoughts. Many people in other countries have rules and regulations on what they can and cannot say. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives Americans the right to free speech (Lakoff 260). Learning to speak is something our parents praise us for when we are little. Why, after all the waiting time they endured, would parents let strangers decide what their child could or could not say. Censorship of language and speech is becoming too strict.

The Constitution of the United States states in its First Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (Funk & Wagnalls 162). This Amendment guarantees each person of free speech. Does this mean that a person can stand in the middle of the street and yell anything he wants? No, society, even though it cherishes freedom of speech, does give this freedom certain restrictions.