Freedom Of Speech : Is Free Speech Really Free?

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).

It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society.

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.

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.

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.

With all the freedom that we have, we must remember that Freedom of Speech is not absolute. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States government has the right to limit speech. The question then becomes, “Where do we cross the line with free speech?” What type of speech is “impermissible”? According to government of the United States, offensive speech such as libel, obscenity, and fighting words that may incite violence should be limited or banned.

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.

There are several examples that show that freedom of speech is not equally free. In the Ward Churchill case, Ward was fired from the University of Colorado after writing that the U.S. foreign policy abuses were a partial cause of 9/11. He was fired for research misconduct. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni enlisted the government to put pressure on the university to fire him. This proves that the government still feels that freedom of speech should be restrained during war times, even though the law that was enacted for this was abolished. This type of suppression is not right. The opinions of people who are not hurting anyone directly should not be punished. Therefore, freedom of speech is not absolute.

Free speech is a fundamental piece of American society; however, it has become a very controversial idea. In recent years several “free-speech” protests have risen, many breaking out in violence. With all the arguments about free speech erupting in America it is important to keep in mind that the first amendment is very broad, and has very few and very specific limitations; thus, very seldom does an individual person or group have the right to stop another from speaking.

Ah, the freedom of speech. Outlined in our nation’s Constitution and considered one of the most fundamental of all human rights, it gives us the ability to express ourselves without government interference, restraint, or suppression (“Freedom of Speech: An Overview”). Free speech is practiced by all types of American citizens, from the teenage girl posting a picture of a Starbucks cup on Instagram to the riled adult handing out fliers for a political cause. Every form of expression, ranging from the frivolous to the meaningful and the agreeable to the controversial, is protected by this significant and irreplaceable liberty. With this in mind, freedom of speech should surely be guaranteed in all corners of our nation.

Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment. It’s likely the most well-known part of the United States Constitution, and was considered by the founders of our country to be one of the most important pieces of a free society. While in years prior it has generally been agreed upon that free speech - especially political speech - is vital to democracy, today there are some people singing a different tune. There are those who believe that certain offensive speech (or in some cases any and all offensive speech) should be prohibited by law. This idea of restricting offensive verbal content is known generally as ‘political correctness’ and will be referred to as such here. The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no

Freedom of Speech is possibly the most respected American ideal. Envied by citizens of countries where self-expression is a right of some and stricken from others, we uphold this concept with defensive pride. However, we must ask ourselves if this freedom can ever go too far. When does lenience turn into naivety? If speech is abused so freely that it enslaves the minds of another should it become a privilege, rather than a right? In his essay “On Racist Speech”, Charles R. Lawrence III argues for limitations on Freedom of Speech as described in the First Amendment to prevent only the most heinous racial remarks. While I understand why many Americans initially find limiting freedom of speech contradictory to the concept of our free states,

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech among other valued standards. The First Amendment states 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 peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U. S. Constitution). What does it mean by “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech?” The framers of the Constitution held the rights to free speech in such utmost regard that they deliberately chose to make it a First Amendment right.

Thirdly, there should be guidelines or correct or incorrect free speech regulated by Harm Principle. Free speech is a right that everyone should have, however, limitations must be present on free speech. There should be fair discussion regardless majority or minority. Mill expressed, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (8). It showed not to harm other people of the community and free speech should not discriminate people. As well as, there free speech is violated to harm another then actions should be taken place to protect or punish because free speech is a fundamental freedom. Mill explained that, “if, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them …punished… not for the extravagance” (68). This is significant because over spending is a personal opinion but if other suffer then harm is present. Harm because he is unable to pay back debt and family suffer by doing so. He should be punished for disadvantages he caused to others not because of his choice of spending. Another, Harm Principle showed that position in society can alter self-regarding behaviour. Mill noted that, “no person ought to be punished simply for being drunk; but a soldier or a policeman should be punished for being