Free Speech Should Be A Limit

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible. However, in recent years, the right to free speech is one of legal and moral ambiguity-What separates offensive free speech from dangerous or threatening (and presumably illegal) hate speech? Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, every American citizen should be entitled to the right of free expression, thought, and speech. While free speech, including racial, sexist, or otherwise prejudiced remarks, must protected no matter

This opposing argument is very much invalid. Though they have limitations, the freedom of speech and the first amendment are still very important to this country. These limits help to keep only the truth in public broadcasting and publishing. An example is if a news station does a report that is slanderous, the authorities may act accordingly to declare their lies unconstitutional. The freedom of speech is a privilege to have, and cannot be taken advantage of by telling lies. The first amendment is still very important, and the limitations it has on the freedom of speech help to keep only the truth in the public.

In the early 21st century there are many issues that arise within societies. Whether the issues are based on freedoms, rights, or power of government. The way we handle these situations is to look at the US Constitution for guidance as the country tries to figure out a solution. One issue that has been in the mainstream as of late, is freedom of speech, which is the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The controversy surrounding the first amendment comes from whether it should be instituted on college campuses or censored by professors and administrators. Ancient philosophers have written about similar issues surrounding censorship in societies and many differ in their beliefs. Plato and Thomas Hobbes would agree that creating an environment

There are four general situations in which freedom of speech should be banned. The first one is Clear and present danger: Freedom of speech will not be protected if the words that come from any person's mouth put in danger someone else, provoke violence, or even incite or suggest illegal actions. A second situation is fighting words: These are the terms socially know to rage anyone, and when they are told face-to-face to a second person, they are not protected by the first amendment because they tend to alter public order and stimulate violence. The third main situation in freedom of speech is known as libel and slander: In this situation the Supreme Court explains that when speech or communication is used to damage someone else's reputation, to lie, or to tergiversate the truth and make it look as something it is not, it is not covered under the first amendment. The forth and last boundary of the first amendment is referred to as time, place and manner: This particular scenario does not disallow the content of the speech itself, but it takes into consideration the place where the speech is given, and the way the person presents the speech. If under any circumstance the government interests or regularities are violated, the speech is not protected under the first amendment.

Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law

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 First Amendment states, “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.” I am a strong supporter of free speech. Often times I am in complete disagreement with what is being said, but I realize others have just as much right as me to share their thoughts and opinions. If they are stifled, I will be also.

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.

The First Amendment does not only give the individuals the rights to free speech, but also gives the companies the protection to advertise their products. However, there are regulations in advertisements, such as that the information on the advertisements cannot be misguiding nor false. If companies are restricted on the way they use to advertise, individuals may not be as free as they think because they are regulated on what they want to say. For instance, tobacco companies are highly regulated in advertisements. The government required tobacco companies to inform the consumers that tobacco can cause bad health problems. This can support the argument that we are not as we as we believe we are because we need to follow the directions of the government. The government limited the people that tobacco companies can target. However, tobacco companies are indirectly targeting the youth because the style of their advertisements are most attractive to teenagers. This is an issue that is cause by the First Amendment because sellers have the rights of free speech. They may be limited to the ways they advertise, but they always find ways to sell their products to a wider group.

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

Free speech should not end when the nature of the words are “inciting or producing lawless action.” This would be a “harsh” censorship of the American people. People should have the right to talk about violence or illegal acts. The supreme court ruling also says that freedom of speech ends when the words are “likely to incite or produce such action.” How does the government know when someone is “likely” to commit the crime that they are talking about? That would be giving a lot of power to a government that has abused power and the trust of its people in the past. Evidence of this is when “James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence [misled] Congress about the phone-log program.” Similarly to Ann Telnaes idea that, “banning offensive

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.

Freedom of speech should have some limitations. The American people should have the right to say whatever they want, but to an extent. Whether it is on signs or verbally some things should not be expressed. The United States is well known for being “the home of the free,” but some people take their freedom a bit too far. People can burn flags, protest at military funerals, even use the “n” word and watching pornography in libraries.

We are in the 21st Century which adage certain methodical and ground-breaking innovations in the field of literature, science, technology and other interconnected fields. In fact this process of progress which the society witnessed in the later part of the 20th century, after much hard struggles for freedom and in the period of independence, we trailed side by side with the developed and developing countries and had left a smudge for ourselves. We have contributed meaningfully to the all-round development of our country India in almost all the fields. From the very ancient times we were known for our culture, for our art and literature and for our religious developments and aids. It is an established fact that the Constitution of India guarantees most vital and vivacious rights to its citizens. These rights also include certain fundamental freedoms. Expression is a matter of liberty and right. The liberty of thought and right to know are the sources of expression. Free Speech is conscious cord of the democracy. Freedom of expression is integral to the growth, development and fulfillment of individual personality. Freedom of expression is most essential in a democratic setup of State where people are the Self-governing rulers. Iver Jennings said, “Without freedom of speech, the appeal to reason which is the basis of democracy cannot be made” . Milton in his Aeropagitica says that without this freedom there can be no health in the moral and intellectual life of