Freedom of Expression Must be Upheld in America Essay

          The bigger issue regarding our right to free speech has to do with censorship and what may potentially become of it. If we continue to strive for a society where we can say whatever we would like, just as long as it doesn't offend anyone, we are losing our rights altogether. Rauch quotes Salman Rushdie in his defense to allegedly offending millions of people, where he asked: “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist”(6). Simply stated, it is nearly impossible to say anything that wouldn't offend someone; Everyone has their own perception of what they consider offensive. Being asked to refrain from using offensive language basically disables you from speaking of anything controversial and therefore we are forced to be idle-minded automatons. Our search for truth and reasoning will be forced to halt as we will no longer be allowed to wonder out loud. If the intellectuals, geniuses, and scientists of our past hadn't been free to ponder the unreasonable, one could assume we wouldn't be where we are today. For no reason should we be forced to silence our thoughts or not speak of anything unacceptable; the result could be far more disastrous than offending people.

This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a

During the "Red Scare" of the early 1920s, thousands were deported for their political views. During the McCarthy period, the infamous blacklist ruined lives and careers. Today, the creators, producers and distributors of popular culture are often blamed for the nation's deep social problems. Calls for censorship threaten to erode free speech (American Civil Liberties union).

Topic: Do you believe that free speech as proscribed under the first amendment of the constitution should be limited?

When it comes to this student in Michigan at Franklin D. Roosevelt that was case for her. When reading the article of "HS Student Asked to Remove anti War Shirt" by Tamar Lewis the first amendment to even wear a shirt of his choice wasn’t respected , as Bretton Barber a H.S junior wore a shirt with ex-president George Bush face on it with the words of "international Terrorists " as well. Not only did the school take affiance to it but they sent him home as well. In times like these I think there are good uses of free speech and bad , and this is no were near the bad kind. I think many need to look into this right of the freedom of speech. As you can't even wear a shirt you may strongly believe in , but there can be people in today's world in a "protest" calling people the "N" word to people's faces. To calling homosexual people god mistake is more right than a shirt then I don’t know what Americas come to. As in the article you read on how a 17 year old boy is getting criticized for not maintain an environment of "conductive to learning". At the time maybe I understand we were gearing up for a war but even if that the case how can you take his rights as a free American away from him. Just because he may feel differently than the next one hundred people around him is not right nor is a good look on the route of the United States as a

Throughout history, Americans have fought hard to gain independence and the freedoms that come with it. However, some choose to test the limitations of those freedoms. For some time, Americans have shown their disgust of the American government by burning flags, and even cutting them up to use as clothing. Although mocking the American government and the flag is disrespectful, revoking the right to do so would be a violation of freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Those who support the no-flag burning amendment argue that the United States flag is a special case. Because it would undermine the constitution and set a dangerous precedent that will make it easier for others enact restrictive amendments to the

Over the course of American history, many have taken the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and created wonderful things out of it. Alice Paul is an excellent example: she utilized her right to free speech and press to promote the equality of women and earned them the right to vote, in the midst of World War I. However, many take it the other way and create hate speeches where they tear down one particular group or individual or idea with their crude and blunt remarks. Yet, they are protected by the freedom of speech and the government cannot interfere with their actions, causing many to argue the First Amendment Right cannot be extended to anyone making hurtful remarks. Hate speeches need to be protected by the freedom of speech, as shown in legal documentation, moral issues, and the benefits it creates.

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

I have an idea!  How about we let everyone freely speak their minds about issues and ideas.  Some will be better than others will of course, but the outcome will be a compilation of everyone’s best thoughts.  Everyone that is, except you.  We, meaning the country, decided that whatever it is that you have to say isn’t all that important and it is recommended that you keep all your thoughts to yourself as it is hard not to be offensive to everyone at the same time.  By offensive I mean to displease someone.  In general, no one really likes what you have to say.  Therefore it has been decided that you and only you will be silenced.

  No matter how fervently someone believes in the justice of his cause, suppression of the free exchange of ideas is failure at best or downright wrong. The power or might behind an idea does not make the idea right. Many powerful people throughout history have been wrong. Few people, if any, would judge "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to be subversive or wrong. In 1939 Ambassador Kennedy was so caught up in the fears of the times that he was willing to use the power of his money to protect the world against a film. When people are caught up in the movements of their time, all people must be extra zealous to guard and encourage freedom of expression. Otherwise, a mob mentality reigns, and people

The founders of the United States government tried to protect our liberty by assuring a free press, to gather and publish information without being under control or power of another, in the First Amendment to the Constitution. We are not very protected by this guarantee, so we concern ourselves on account of special interest groups that are fighting to change the freedom of expression, the right to freely represent individual thoughts, feeling and views, in order to protect their families as well as others. These groups, religious or otherwise, believe that publishing unorthodox material is an abuse of free expression under the First Amendment. As we know, the Supreme Court plays an important role in the subject of free speech and

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.

The Constitution of the United States states in its First Amendment 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (Funk & Wagnalls 162). This Amendment guarantees each person of free speech. Does this mean that a person can stand in the middle of the street and yell anything he wants? No, society, even though it cherishes freedom of speech, does give this freedom certain restrictions.

“Do you know where here is? Here is the ELI, if you want to speak Chinese, please go out.” Can you think of Mr. Cranker and the English Only Policy while seeing these kinds of sentences? He always uses a gentle intonation to say these words and repeats them thousands of times with endless patience day by day in the hall. Actually, speaking English in the ELI is non-negotiable and responsible; furthermore, this policy enables students to learn English more effectively and efficiently regardless of subduing foreign students’ freedom of speech. This Policy is a great paradigm of overturning the freedom of speech somewhat; moreover, society cannot be regulated with one hundred percent freedom until the world can become safe and sound

Freedom of expression, and open access to media, are as fundamental to the survival of Progress as the sun and rain are to the survival of planet Earth. Yet censorship remains a traditional response of any group that finds itself offended at another's message or creative indulgence.