Freedom of Speech Mill and Freiberg

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.

The idea behind freedom is to be respectful and useful to our society but also to do so at your own wishes. Freedom is important to everyone. If someone is deprived from this innate right, they will either lose an essence of their soul or go mad. When freedom is guaranteed, a person can think freely, go anywhere they want, speak their opinion freely without fear from other people who would cause harm to them for their opinion. Freedom of opinion is among the most important aspects of freedom. In some societies where freedom of opinion is not

Former president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, in his essay, “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” published in the Boston Globe, addresses the topic of protection and regulation of freedom of expression on college campuses and argues that rather than prohibiting the expression of offensive speech, it would be better to ignore it. He fails to support his claim by dismissing the emotional discomfort that people might find themselves in, in response to someone’s offensive expressions, and by not being a credible source of information on the topic, but he successfully appeals to the reader by offering logical reasons as to why

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort (n.p).

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible. However, in recent years, the right to free speech is one of legal and moral ambiguity-What separates offensive free speech from dangerous or threatening (and presumably illegal) hate speech? Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, every American citizen should be entitled to the right of free expression, thought, and speech. While free speech, including racial, sexist, or otherwise prejudiced remarks, must protected no matter

Free speech is by far the most commonly recognized freedom in our everyday lives. The freedom of speech allows us to voice our own opinions without the severe repercussions of some countries. It allows us to say what we really feel and helps us learn how to communicate in true and meaningful ways. Along with this freedom, we must remember that there are limits to this freedom. While being arrested “you have the right to remain silent” and anything you say can be used against you in court. This freedom is not one to be taken for

Censorship of free speech denies the individual democratic rights by silencing and filtering some important ideas in the favor of others. In this case the censored information defends the majority in power which often results in oligarchy. For democracy to work properly

Freedom of speech is the balance between personal liberty & government authority. Free speech started & began when the settlers came over to the United States from Europe & made the original British colonies (Freedom Of Speech, 2014). Because of this right being made, having the liberty of free speech means that an individual or the press have the absolute right to talk or express their opinions freely (Freedom Of Speech, 2014).

Joel Feinberg, defines the Offense Principle as “ it is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it is probably necessary to prevent serious offense [as opposed to injury or harm] to persons other than the actor, and would probably be an effect means to that end if enacted.” (Feinberg, 1984). I believe that this principle serves as the best way to analyze R. V. Keegstra. There are many factors that fall under the Offense Principle, such as extent, duration, social value of speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, and the general interests of the community at large, however, I will only touch a few. Based off of these factors, Keegstra and Zundel should be prosecuted, but not those from “Go Yankee, go”. Zundel and “Go Yankee, go” are to be discussed in a later section of this essay.

General limitations on free speech are libel, slander, obscenity, child pornography, incitement, offensive words, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, sedition, and various other limitations. The offense principle is used to prohibit forms of expression that some consider offensive to society, groups, or individuals. For example, free speech is limited in many jurisdictions to broad varying standards by legal systems, religious offense, and incitement to ethnic or racial hatred laws. Legal systems and society have limits on the free speech, especially when it clashes with other values or rights. Limitations of speech may abide by the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of child pornography or racial

The author’s purpose is tell people that everyone has the right which is the freedom of speech, and he also claim that making offensive messages will cause violence. The author give several points to illustrate how we think about a reasonable thing is not right. Although some people agree that they prefer one message and limit another message, it’s not correct for people who are given up their rights. It will caused prejudice for them. In the essay, the author plays an observer and information collector. He gets the information through news and people who had ever taken the argument. The author give us the context that The First Amendment give the freedom of speech and this event happened in university. Reader can know about a person who spread

The right to freedom of speech as one of the fundamental human rights is enshrined in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is consisted of the freedom to speak, think and express oneself without censorship. Freedom of speech constitutes the essential foundations of a democratic society and the basic conditions for its progress and for the development. One of most important functions of the right to freedom of speech is that decision-making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. It enables the public to participate in making decisions based on the free flow of information and ideas. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly reflects

This democracy gives (almost) everyone the freedom of speech and to have a role in the government.

In Brink’s discussion of, Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, he distinguishes between low value and high value speech. The former is speech that plays no essential role in the exposition of ideas and is of such slight social value as a step to the truth that any benefit is outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Examples of low value speech include threats, fighting words, incitement of illegal activity, libel, and obscenity. In contrast, high value speech is speech that contributes to public discourse. Moreover, it possesses content-based restrictions that are subject to strict scrutiny, laws that are necessary to meet a state interest.

Mill uses the Harm Principle to identify his argument for freedom of speech. The Harm Principle explains that the government are only justified in interfering with individuals who express their views if only their views cause harm to others. If a person’s actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. Three ideas helped shape the harm principle. The first idea, Mill states that the harm principle is composed of the liberty of expressing and publishing opinions as being important as the liberty of thought, which