Freedom Of Speech : The Importance Of The Freedom Of Speech

The freedom of press sounds like one of the things we shouldn’t be focused on, especially with everything else that is going on in our world. Why exactly is this an important freedom? I have always found it to be a little bit strange that we are protecting the right to say hateful things about people you barely know. It doesn’t sound like it should be as important as things like torture or murder. Sometimes words can hurt, but they can also be used to do great things.

These news outlets, as well as talk radio, at least get people involved in the political world and drive conversations. Many who watch or listen to them have other sources from which to gather information, such as their local newspaper. For every disparaging remark made about my choice of news outlets, I can find 10 more to counter the remark anywhere on the web. For example, Rush Limbaugh said that Bartlett has now gone over to “the dark side.” Another example is from The Christian Science Monitor, “Fox News was among the top four outlets cited as people’s main source of news.” For a 19 year old actively involved and working college student, I do not have the time to find and read scholarly papers because any and all elections would be over by the time I did. In the meantime, I will continue to listen more to the news radio and read news websites while discerning what is actually news and what part is for entertainment

The government can not censor the press, even if what is published is against the government. The free press helps to protect citizens’ rights and hold the government in check. Also in accordance to the First Amendment, people have the right to join any organization of their choosing and come together as a group, peaceably. The last right that the public has is the right to present the government with petitions or letters that tell of their unhappiness and complaints against the government. This is a right that our founding fathers did not have back in England. When they declared independence from the King, they laid out all of their grievances for the world to see. In contrast, our citizens today do no have to wait for a historical event to vent their frustrations.

Freedom is being breached all over the U.S and most of it is being taken away from the press. Sure the Patriot Act is killing everyone's privacy in secrecy all over the US, but journalists and reporters are being put in jail right and left. The government has infringed on their rights in a way that should not be with the first amendment. It seems like the more people let the government do, the more steps the government takes to take first amendment rights from people. For instance the secret spying on people from government organizations, the quiet protest of a man who was brutally beat and sent to jail, the beginning of punishment comparison to a communist country, and the severe punishment of a man who would did

In article 8, Michael Parenti challenges the view that the mainstream media in the United States is free, independent, neutral and objective. Parenti claims that the media “often behaves like the lapdogs of Plutocracy”. Plutocracy is a government that is basically controlled and ruled by the wealthy in that country. Essentially what this means is that the media is run by these giant wealthy corporations and instead of media doing its job, and informing the general public, instead it only says what these corporations want them to say. Hard hitting news that shines a negative light on these wealthy groups is banned because it makes them look bad. One of the best pieces of evidence he offers is the slew of reporters that have been fired or forced

News stories may be censored to protect a person and their identity. It may also be used to cover up vital national security information or graphic details. Does this prohibit the reader from knowing the full story? Perhaps, but of times, this may be for our own benefit.There is a fine line between going into gory, unsettling detail and making it seem like your everyday actuality. For example, when exposing violent brutal assault and graphic imagery. Journalists sometimes even have to self-censor their own work to keep safe, even western journalists cannot always tell the complete story when working in difficult situations. It puts them in grave danger if they do: Such as in the case of the journalists slaughtered by ISIS for uncovering secrets and political agenda behind the terrorist organisation. Censoring journalism prohibits possible important information from reaching the masses but also it is something which we may have to live with to some

America holds the illusion of ‘land of the free and home of the brave.’ This by any means, is not true if we continue to classify big media corporations as free press. Big corporations like Fox news, CNN, Union Tribune, etc. are also referred to as mainstream media and are completely under the control of the elite 1%. Time and again mainstream media has proved as unrepresentative, only serving the ones who pay them. In a nation where democracy is valued, people rely heavily on news sources to gather information, therefore, they need sources who can provide uncensored information that enables them to make knowledgeable decisions about their government.

Media outlets have the power to voice opinions for the masses of followers they may have. Depending on the topic, media typically has 2 different standpoints but there is always room for another. Three standpoints typically become more common when burning topics come to light. Using the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals as an example better known as DACA, I found articles that were mainly targeted towards either Republican, Liberal, or Neutral parties. The articles were debriefing the controversy around the elimination of DACA. The republican media outlets such as Fox News portrays in favor of the wrongdoing of being illegal. Fox News outlets do not sympathize or use any humanity when wording their article. The title reads "What is DACA

These are some examples of why it’s a positive thing that the Constitution has the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that Congress shall not prohibit ”or abridge the freedom...of the press...” (“The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution”). This is important because otherwise, American journalists can end up with the same fate as those living in a country where media censorship is prevalent. However, we maybe be approaching that point. The Committee to Protect Journalists is concerned about “the sharp deterioration of press freedom in the U.S.” which has been linked to Donald Trump’s campaign (Bromwich). One event in particular stands out as an example of this. On Inauguration Day 2017, six journalists were indiscriminately arrested with several protesters. The Metropolitan PD charged the journalists, who were there only to report the scene at the inauguration, with felony rioting, lumping them in with the actual protesters. “[These] actions were seen to contribute to a threatening climate for journalists covering the election,”

The media in the United States of America has grown on a massive scale in the form of the Liberal Model. This of course entails market-dominated practices and professionalization in journalism in all adequate media aspects. The First Amendment has provided the American citizens with the freedom of speech ever since it was established. This privilege is very evident in today’s society as news media on all sides of the political spectrum gets mass amounts of coverage throughout the country. The U.S. observes never-ending debates going on in the political atmosphere everyday because of the countless issues occurring in the country including the management of the economy, handling of taxes, and many more. Although it is nearly impossible for the media to please everyone in society as a

The Federal Communication Commission often is under scrutiny for allegedly infringing on people’s rights to freedom of speech because of their penalties they have for certain things that are said on TV or on the radio. For instance, in 2012, the FCC was taken to the Supreme Court by Fox Television Stations, Inc. because of a fine that was given to Fox for allowing explicits on a live broadcast of the 2002 Billboard Music Awards. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fox because they believed that these fines were unconstitutional. While these does seem like a very clear violation of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. There needs to be institutions in place that have the power to regulate things like the what is on TV or the radio because while every should have the freedom to say what they are thinking, there needs to be a line and some to judge whether something has crossed that line. This is a very unpopular decision but in a hypothetical situation where something is said that can hurt someone or a group of people we would want

Through Russia's history the government has taken away freedom of press to further strengthen their regime. After all according to Podrabinek “suppression of free speech is the trademark of dictatorship”.“In 1917, the Russian Bolsheviks moved to limit freedom of speech the very day after the October coup-d’état. They adopted the "Decree on the Press," which shut down any newspapers "sowing discord by libelous distortion of facts." (Podrabinek). Even today Russia continues to limit its citizens freedom of speech and the rate we're going Trump will too. Trump is already alienating news outlets claiming they are fake and crooked. In addition to all that his restricting the movement of those who would call him out on his dictatorial ways by banning them from

They have pass many laws for freedom of the press. For example in a 1969 landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students can engage in free speech only if it is lawful and not disruptive. Meaning that the U.S. government has little direct control over what the media print or broadcast. Floyd Adrams says “The worst time for freedom of the press has almost all ways bine during times of war”. People have a tendency to limit speech that is viewed as dangerous but the public understandably becomes nervous, but

News media was required to give multiple perspectives while giving citizens the story This would in due course eliminate bias and partisan news outlets. Though it sounds reasonable, many people argue of that the government's role should be minimal when it comes to regulating anyone’s freedom of speech (Fletcher) ."[The Fairness Doctrine is] an assault on the First Amendment."- Sean Hannity. With so much controversy I don’t see the Fairness Doctrine passing in Congress anytime soon

Freedom of Speech to Canadians and journalism is a very significant right; it allows us to express ourselves freely, and speak truthfully to our beliefs. If journalists were not allowed to publish what they believed in, what would be the point in doing so? Additionally, what would our media look like today if they were not allowed? If the media was censored the information we would be looking at online and on the news would be portrayed, in a completely different light. We would not have access to the types of information we have now. Surely some of the things that have been