Free Speech In Oliver Wendell Holmes's Freedom Of Speech

According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).

America’s first president George Washington once argued at the [whenever he said this] that “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” It is an essential component to the daily life of any constitutional republic, such as that of the United States even though it is a right granted to all American citizens, in the past, freedom of speech has been abridged to accommodate political correctness, to prevent disruptive behavior that could negatively affect others, and to protect confidential military information.

All you ever hear about in the news lately is people getting in trouble for speech. Many Americans embrace freedom of speech for the same reasons they embrace other aspects of individualism. Freedom of speech is the right to defiantly, robustly and irreverently speak one's mind just because it is one's mind. Freedom of speech is thus bonded in special and unique ways to the human capacity to think, imagine and create. Conscience and consciousness are the sacred precincts of mind and soul. Freedom of speech is intimately linked to freedom of thought, to that central capacity to reason and wonder, hope and believe, that largely defines our humanity (Smolla).

The freedom of speech has never been free to everyone. Many Americans grow up with this saying and feel it to be true. Suzanne Nossel wrote her article “How we communicate is changing. So should the way we think about free speech”, published in August of 2017 in The Washington Post, and she argues that “students who seek to shut down speech that offends - through calls to disinvite speakers, punish offensive remarks or shout down opponents - have been dismissed as coddled, unenlightened, entitled, anti-intellectual, dogmatic and infantile.” (Nossel, 2017, p. 1). Nossel builds her credibility with facts and reputable sources, citing convincing facts and statistics, and successfully employing emotional appeals.

Opposers to limitations on the First Amendment might say that we should not silence the people who have differing opinions than us, but we should challenge them. We should have the right to an open discussion where people can have whatever opinion they want as long as it follows the current guidelines of the First Amendment. The First Amendment relies on counter speech in hopes that “good will overpower the bad.”

The United States Constitution grants American citizens the freedom of speech. This single line in the First Amendment has been a staple of American culture since its ratification on December 15, 1791 (Constitution Center, 2018). The Founders recognized the significance of this freedom and the power it had to shape a young nation. It was George Washington who declared-“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter” (Global Research, 2016). The legal definition of this vision is “the right to express information, ideas, and opinions- free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). This sole clause has been the subject

Free speech is the backbone that holds democracy together.  Without a free speech, ideas would not be challenged, governments would not be kept in check, and citizens would not be free.  John Stuart Mill said once that, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person then he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”( Roleff, 21). The right to free speech is essential to “egalitarian democracy,”(Tsesis) however, this right is not absolute and must be limited in certain situations.

As Stated by Robert F. Kennedy, an American politician, in his Day of Affirmation Address, the first and most crucial element of our individual liberty is our freedom of speech and the right to express our ideals. It seems following the terrorist attacks from September 11th people became scared and frightened that such a thing could happen, an now people are losing

America’s history is filled with constant arguing, debating, and bickering. Because America is so diverse and full of people with differing opinions, it is important that everyone is given a voice. The Bill of Rights is opened with the 1st amendment, which consists of the freedom of speech, religion, petition, press, and assembly. These are the cornerstones of American society, and the freedom to assemble has guided America to where it is today. This promise was a direct response to many events in colonial America, has been defended in court as shown is the case of the Village of Skokie vs. the National Socialist Party, and was pushed to its limit at the White Nationalist Rally in Charlottesville, yet the persistence of this right proves how controversy succumbs to the freedom of expression.

Centuries ago in American society, individuals were not granted the free will to act and speak freely. First Amendment rights allowed citizens to do so. On a historical outlook, the oppressed fought for the rights of various groups in the United States. Although laws and situations evolve, groups in America continue to face inequality and issues with freedom of speech. There is room for further improvement; freedom for all citizens needs to be fulfilled. The impression of being free is what gives the United States the ideology of being a part of a democracy. Recent events have revealed issues with freedom of speech and questioning about what kinds of speech is protected. In order to close the gap in

I’ve not had the pleasure of reading a nonfiction book as intriguing and enjoyable as David K. Shipler’s Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword in a long time. The pages brought to life stories of secrecy and conspiracy, of authority and rebellion, and of missteps by public figures readers like myself often only get an outsider’s glimpse of. After first reading the introduction, however, I wasn’t sure how I felt; I couldn’t fully grasp what Shipler was saying and was concerned that the rest of the book would elicit similar feelings. Thankfully, those fears were alleviated only pages into Part I: Books. I found Shipler’s style of writing incredibly engaging and easy to follow, and the case studies were both interesting and new to

From Martin Luther King Junior to Mahatma Gandhi, the most influential social leaders understood the power of peaceful protest and advancing the world through effective debate. Despite their example, Lukianoff accurately displays that the power of citizens as well as students has been employed to dissuade speakers with controversial perspectives from sharing the state of their American mind. Not only is this concept dangerous to the second amendment but to society as a whole. By handpicking which viewpoints are expressed in any environment we create citizens who are unable to handle constructive criticism or debate to advance everyone’s understanding.

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s words ring true in the vast majority of the population of America. According to Associated Press-National Constitution Center Poll, which was featured on the Washington Post, stated that “70 percent of all Americans believe that freedom of speech should mean that people should have the right to say what they believe in, even if they take positions that seem deeply offensive to most people.” Based on the supporting evidence from the AP-National Constitution Center Poll, the majority of Americans are agreeing with the idea of freedom of speech. They are confident that we as Americans deserve to speak on what we strongly believe in, regardless of the highly offensive words that most people seem to be repulsive to. Many Americans have also realized that

Nicholas Shackel argues in his article “The Fragility of Free Speech” that “false notions” have caused people to lose understanding of what free speech really is. He believes that even if they do not agree with a specific opinion, it still needs to be respected. Shackel also discusses what is protected and what is not protected by freedom of speech. Once speech becomes violent or instigates violence, it is not protected. Shackel is frustrated with the creation of laws that limit free speech because, without free speech, we are not truly free. While Shackel’s argument about the “fragility” of free speech is hard to refute, the overly emotional and aggressive tone, Shackel’s contradiction of himself, and his lack of evidence for his claims cause his argument to falter.

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.