The editorial, “weaponized words” written by Kate Manne and Jason Stanley is a cry for help in the world of politics, which argues that the freedom of speech laws allow for the voices of dominant social groups to overpower those that are inferior. This opinion is also shown in the third political cartoon provided, that shows two different social groups under the same “freedom of speech” umbrella, who have to deal with each other constantly trying to oppress the other. These laws make it hard for any advancement of the lower-class societies.
The belief that the freedom of speech laws, or the first amendment, need to be more concrete can be seen in the first political cartoon. This cartoon shows, again, two rival social groups, both are equals, however one of the social groups is using their freedom of speech in a improper way, and they are not being punished or prohibited in any way. This shows the oppression of a certain social group that is not being stopped. Much like in the editorial, which states that Yale students are being pressured into not wearing certain halloween costumes because they “offend others”, the cartoon shows the use of
…show more content…
The author(s) stated that to truly have freedom of speech, one must be able to “question, contradict, and even lampoon the assertions of others” meaning you should be able to disagree with another person's claims, publicly if needed or wanted. This is shown in the second cartoon, where the NRA member is telling people, in a rude and unnecessary manner, that he disagrees with what they are doing. At the top of the cartoon, it states “if only we had an ‘NRA’ to defend the first amendment” which shows the belief that the first amendment is not getting enough support and protection, yet smaller programs like the NRA are standing up for less important things than the freedom of speech, like newspaper
The house of representatives makes and passes federal laws. They are one of two chambers that creates the U.S legislative branch. The house may even be referred to as “the people house” because it’s representative’s are viewed and based upon the population or amount of people in each state. In this political cartoon, there are two sides one side is labeled “the people's house” which is the outside view of the Capitol building, while the other side shows citizens inside the Capitol building scared. The Capitol building holds meeting's and debates with the electives, however, the scared citizens show a negative connotation because they are not providing respect to the building and what's surrounding them. The ironic part of this cartoon is
In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.
The freedom of speech is one of the most precious rights that the United States citizens have. Unlike many other countries, the United States citizens have the freedom to speak their minds and to give their opinions on anything as long as it is done in a peaceful manner without having any fear of governmental retaliation. “The First Amendment guarantees our right to free expression and free association, which means that the government does not have the right to forbid us from saying what we like and writing what we like.” This does not mean that a person can say whatever he or she wants to say, but rather that a person’s right to say something is protected within certain limits.
The first amendment, the right of freedom of speech is one of the most important classic fantasy to almost anyone living in the United States, building the foundation of our nation. This right gives us plenty of different opportunities to express our opinions and political viewpoints on any issues in America. But it comes with a price, people have been protesting multiple different events trying to prevent people from expressing opposing opinions or political viewpoints on that has issues in America. For the minority of people, expressing a different opinion should be protected no matter how controversial or insensitive it may be.
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
Most obviously there is a line between free speech and discrimination, free speech and bullying, free speech and defamation, free speech and religious intolerance ect. No matter the law or the right there is always certain restriction that are imposed to keep tolerance exercising in a conflicted society
"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.
Freedom of expression has always been a heated and heavily debated topic throughout our society, more so in recent times due to the increasing amount of freedoms that we gain. However, it is only natural that free speech be something of extreme amounts of conflict since this right is expressed in the very first amendment of the Constitution. But, how loosely should such an important document within our history be interpreted? This has been a question for years, and it is obvious that this particular amendment presents itself through our day-to-day activities. The real issue with freedom of speech is that, even though it is presented to us, there are obviously people who would abuse it to invoke emotional distress, or even to invoke acts of
Freedom of speech is a glorious thing and a privileges of living in the United States of America is being able to express one’s opinion. Segments of society are making an effort to stifle people’s opinions to do what is politically correct. Can people’s ideas of protection be too extreme? In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that there is a negative outcome when rules are given to stop people from being offended, and this statement is supported from real life examples, analogies, and reliable sources.
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
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.
As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.
“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” (Jacobus 93). Just like the Freedom of Religion there are limitations placed on the Freedom of Speech so that other people’s rights aren’t compromised. For example, people are not allowed to present true threats, or “fighting words” to another person. This restriction was put into play in the court case of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. The Court ruled that “fighting words, by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace and may be punished consistent with the First Amendment.” (Ruane 3-4). In this case if someone was to use “fighting words” which is their perceived freedom of speech, it would not only violate the law, it could violate someone’s freedom of pursue life, liberty, and happiness. With this, we can see that freedom is not always as it
Throughout history, the United States Constitution has been put to the test over the issue of free speech. 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." Even though free speech is one of the core American values proudly embedded in each citizen, some poopAmericans find themselves torn between whether or not to limit the freedom of speech on behalf of hate speech. Most law-abiding citizens disagree with hate speech, but must realize even speech that promotes hate, racism, and even crime
George Orwell once famously said If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' This sentence sums up the very essence of free speech; it is, as Orwell believed, the mother of all civil rights. Without the unconditional freedom to offend it cannot exist. Ideas are, more often than not, dangerous things. There is little point in having freedom of speech if it only defends the most popular and innocuous of opinions. The freedom to offend can perpetrate racial, social or religious intolerance; however, conversely, it is also the only means available to fight against such bigotry. Free speech is not something to work towards when the world is better'; it is, rather, the vital tool through