Freedom Of Speech And Freedom Of Rights And The Bill Of Rights

Individual rights have been a hot topic in the American government since the first stirrings of the American Revolution. In accordance with the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson’s “The Declaration of Independence” was revolutionary in its statement that all people had “certain unalienable rights” (18), which people today sometimes to refer to as individual rights. In modern times, many television shows have made references to individual rights, such marriage equality, like in Leslie Knope’s officiation of the marriage between two male penguins on the NBC sitcom Parks and Recreation (“Pawnee Zoo”). Although it could be said that “The Declaration of Independence” is focused only on equality and independence from Great Britain and that

Imagine walking through a town plaza and suddenly spotting a bust depicting Adolf Hitler, or a statue of a Nazi Swastika. A passerby may stare in horror upon its recognition, and wonder why a symbol of such hatred and violence is displayed prominently in a town. These statues would incite an uproar and immediate demands to remove such offensive monuments. Thankfully, such a situation would never arise in modern America; however, a similar plight is unfolding across the country concerning the removal of Confederate statues. Confederate statues should not be displayed in public areas because they are reminders of a time when racial violence went unpunished, they are honoring people who wanted to keep other

“‘A great nation does not hide its history, it faces its flaws and corrects them.”’ George W. Bush spoke these words at the grand opening of the National Museum of African American History and Culture (Nelson). He said this in hopes of keeping monuments reflecting slavery and segregation standing so people today could learn from mistakes in the past. Most monuments dealing with the topic of slavery are Confederate monuments, but they are causing controversy over their true meaning. Some people believe Confederate monuments are about southern pride, but many think they are symbols of racism (Ingraham). The debate over these monuments has caused violent protests like in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a Robert E. Lee statue was removed. Although Confederate monuments anger many people because of the history behind them, they provide lessons that can be taught to help end racism and make a better country. Confederate monuments and statues need to stay to preserve the history of the United States so it is not repeated, but the meaning to them should be altered to show segregation is immoral.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of “free speech zones” has made its way to colleges everywhere. A “free speech zone” is a sidewalk sized place where students are allowed to speak their minds freely on college campuses. I know what you’re thinking. This sounds ridiculous. Why are there specific places for people to speak their minds? Aren’t colleges suppose to be a place where students speak their minds and learn new things? Universities should not be able to put any restrictions on free speech.

A recent hot-button subject in the media has been what to do with Confederate monuments in the South. After the removal of a statue honoring Robert E. Lee, a general in the Confederate Army considered by many to be a hero for the part he played in the American Civil War, a clear divide has formed over whether it was the right thing to do. Some agree with this choice, calling the statues remnants from a time of racial oppression in the United States. Others are outraged, considering it desecration of their proud history. Still others don't understand either side of the issue, and see it as a pointless feud. It is imperative to understand that to many people, these are more than just statues. Whether their impression is positive or negative, this issue goes beyond physical monuments.

In his article “New Orleans Is Wrong to Remove Its Confederate Monuments,” John Daniel Davidson argues that New Orleans is taking down their statues for purely political purpose, instead of inclusion and tolerance. First, Davidson depicts men in black showing up to statues lies with sniper’s ready for any trouble that may arise. By doing so he claims that the Confederate monuments should be kept standing. To support his claim, Davidson brings up many issues that arose from these statues or Confederate symbols is the past such as the mass shooting in South Carolina and many schools in the South taking many steps to rid themselves of any Confederate monument. Next, he reminds us that the only thing keeping some of these statues up is the state

In Charleston, South Carolina during June of 2015, nine African-American church goers were murdered by a Caucasian young man, in what is now being called the Charleston Church Shooting. This murder has put new heat under an ongoing controversy over the Confederate flag, its symbolism, and brought debate over the flag to the forefront nationwide. In South Carolina, the House debate over removal of the flag from a Confederate monument at the Capitol Building picked up importance when pictures of the killer, posing with a Confederate flag, surfaced on the internet. The debate grew further in popularity nationwide, when Bree Newsom decided to scale the flag pole at the monument and remove the Confederate flag herself. Between the photos on the

The debate over whether to tear down the Confederate monuments or to let them stand has turned many peaceful protests into violent clashes, Jessica Suerth, a writer for CNN, reported that this debate started back when Dylann Roof intended to start a race war by killing nine African Americans at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. After that, in a recent white nationalist march in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a counter protester was killed amidst the clash between the two sides the two sides. Since these two incidents, many have begun to question the reason for the Confederate monuments, the meaning that they have, and their value in today's society. Some believe that the Confederate monuments are here to honor their heritage and remind

There are 700 monuments that commemorate the Confederacy and Confederate generals. The majority of these monuments are in the South, where the Confederacy was born. These monuments were not erected immediately after the Civil War. Instead, the monuments were erected a generation later during the Jim Crow Laws and once more in the Civil Rights Movement. The controversy began when a Confederate, Dylan Roof, shot black citizens in a church in South Carolina. After the incident, the South Carolinian government removed the Confederate flag and other Confederate symbols from the state capitols. Other states followed suit. However, people have met these actions with criticism. This scenario occurred once more with the recent unrest in Charlottesville.

Before dealing with individual amendments I would like to deal with the entire Bill of Rights and the constitution itself. The framers of the Constitution were wary of ceding too much power to the federal government. They rightly believed many local citizens would never make it to the capital but would interact with local government, so the power should be kept at the most local level possible. It was impossible to foresee in 1791 a world with video conferencing, 24-hr news and the ability to fly around the world within 36 hours. Because of the world we live in, I believe it is more necessary to make the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the foundational laws of the land. In 1833, the Supreme Court ruled in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of rights was written out of fear by the Antifederalist to constrain the federal government. We have given the individual States the power to make laws that conflict and contradict with Federal law, the laws of other states and national norms. It is these contradictions that allowed the Jim Crow laws and the doctrine of Separate but Equal to flourish in the aftermath of the Civil War. I believe that the law should be formulated at the highest level and filter down to the lowest. Make the Constitution and the Bill of Rights the total law of the land and no other law in any state may contradict them to ensure the beginnings of equality among all citizens.

There are many Amendments in The Bill of Rights and all of the rights are to the constitution to the United States. The purpose of the The Bill of Rights is to protect individuals liberties. The Bill of Rights was written in 1789 and was ratified in December 15, 1791, James Madison wrote The Bill of Rights and he was the one to guide it through the New Constitution.

Hate speech is not free speech due to the fact that it is unconstitutional. Free speech is not speech free from consequences. When we choose to express ourselves, we also choose to accept the consequences of that speech. An example of why hate speech is not free speech is because it can violate certain freedom of speech like slander and libel. Another example would be like a specific individual starts using fighting words against someone and that someone starts fighting that specific being. That specific being is then brought to court with that other person trying to defend themselves saying that,”My freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment.” However, the other person can argue that the first amendment does not protect his or

One of the most complex things in establishing in a government is determining how much freedom the citizens in a society has. Throughout history we have seen many different type of governments that include North Koreas’ dictatorship to the United States that has a government based on principles of democracy. In societies that have democratic governments such as the United States, England, France, and many other western European countries, the citizens have a high degree of freedom of speech. In addition, these people are allowed to have a high degree of freedom of thought. Although these are both very important to have in life because they allow you to express who you truly are, there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of thought. While there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of thought, English Philosopher John Stuart Mill provides his opinion on the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of thought in his book On Liberty.

Media has been censored for the greater good of the people since as far back as 399 BC when Socrates was forced to drink poison for his “corruption of youth” (Mette), which can be seen as silencing one man for the betterment of everyone, but there is always an ample amount of opinions on such a controversial topic as Freedom of the press, or Freedom of Speech. Many nations today believe that very strict and regulated system of governing the media and entertainment is the best answer, such as China, where “censorship was considered a legitimate instrument for regulating the moral and political life of the population” (Mette), but this method of governing has a major flaw. Having such a regulated system causes a great amount of distrust and

One of the most complex things in establishing in a government is determining how much freedom the citizens in a society has. Throughout history we have seen many different type of governments that include North Koreas’ dictatorship to the United States that has a government based on principles of democracy. In societies that have democratic governments such as the United States, England, France, and many other western European countries, the citizens have a high degree of freedom of speech. In addition, these people are allowed to have a high degree of freedom of thought. Although these are both very important to have in life because they allow you to express who you truly are, there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of thought. While there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of thought, English Philosopher John Stuart Mill provides his opinion on the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of thought in his book On Liberty.