Freedom of Speech and Expression - Little Freedom in a Complex World

Can fictional books teach students about social issues and how to deal with them? Fiction allows students to explore different situations and events, that they have never experienced. A novel can contain all sorts of themes, conflicts, and lessons. In Looking for Alaska, each character is different because of the way their life problems have affected them and how those around them make them feel. Despite the school board’s recent sentiments regarding the lack of value that fiction provides, fiction should remain in the school’s curriculum due to teaching social issues that can occur in life, people can go through these social issues even relate to them, and students can take life lessons from fiction books if they exist in real life.

Within the last couple of decades, schools have been banning books due to the reoccurring problems in modern day time, like profanity. Use of language should not limit what a student can and cannot read. Fahrenheit 451, one of the many books that have been put into consideration for being banned because of disputatious issues. The story of a protagonist who finds joy in his job as a fireman, setting fire to illegally owned books and their owners homes. However, the fireman soon starts to question the value of his job and his life. Throughout the book, characters are left to deal with censorship, restriction, and put in life threatening situations. Although the novel contains reoccurring controversial issues, Fahrenheit 451 should be included in middle and high school curriculums because it allows teachers and students to freely discuss the importance of language use included in reality.

Many people have gone to court questioning exactly what freedom of speech means, and through these cases, it’s been made clear that this freedom does not exist in all situations. For example, you cannot say something that would put people in danger or create disorder. A common example of this being yelling fire in a movie theater, but it also includes things like destroying draft cards and making public private material. Another point is that, although the government might not punish you for saying certain things, other people may have the right to. For instance, if a school tells you not to say something, and you do, the school has full right to discipline or expell

Lessons learned from reading fiction can be very useful to use while approaching your issues. Fiction fills our beliefs and desires and teaches us things we have didn’t know. Evidence I can pull to help support my claim is that real world problems are no joke. These issues shouldn't be taken lightly. Fiction can teach you life lessons that you may or may not known. The school board needs to think this through. If the school board makes this decision on taking away fiction from school, today's society, in my opinion, will get mad. Today's society can tear people down easily. They can adapt to many different things at once if they wanted to. They can make things worse for people or make things good for people. Not only is this book about fictional issues, it’s also about real world problems and how fiction can relate to us, the readers. “Researchers found that people who read Literary fiction, led to better results in every subject. That same year, they found that people who read fiction had a higher brain activity than others who didn't.” Fiction, in my opinion, should be taken down, because of this

In the United States, the right to expression is one of the ideals many citizens are proud of. To be able to share your beliefs and fight for them, is one of the founding ideas of this country. As a journalist, I fully support this concept and it is troubling to see when it is ignored in other countries around the world. The fear of jail or murder for activism is not only a horrible injustice, but goes against ideals all countries should uphold. The lack of respect for expression and activism around the world should concern all who desire a just society that respects humanity and our differences.

After reading the transcript of the speech, “The Spirit of Liberty”, given by federal judge for more than 50 years, Learned Hand, who served most of the time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, my idea of what it means to be an American was slightly shifted. The statement made by Hand which really caught my attention was, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes.” I agree with Hand in the sense that the constitution can only serve purpose to our country if we, as Americans, learn to be truly accepting.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of “free speech zones” has made its way to colleges everywhere. A “free speech zone” is a sidewalk sized place where students are allowed to speak their minds freely on college campuses. I know what you’re thinking. This sounds ridiculous. Why are there specific places for people to speak their minds? Aren’t colleges suppose to be a place where students speak their minds and learn new things? Universities should not be able to put any restrictions on free speech.

Limits on our rights limit freedom. Colin Kaepernick, a former 49ers quarterback, took a knee during the presentation of the protested during the U.S. national anthem as a way of social protest. Kaepernick and others following his suit have silently protested racial inequality and police brutality. Protesting the national anthem is an appropriate form of free speech. Due to exercising the First Amendment, nonviolent protesting, and by being national, influential football players, refusing to stand for the national anthem is ethical.

In the United States we enjoy many freedoms. There are many place throughout the world that don’t allow you to live your life with the flexibilities that a United States citizen may possess. These right are given by the Unites States constitution has made this country become pioneers of innovation, and cultural development. Having a right to express yourself and your ideals have made this the home of immigrates with the ambition to develop into major contributors in modern society. One freedom we enjoy, I would like to discuss in this paper is freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is one the world’s most sort after rights but as of lately it has been under attack stating it may cause national security issues. In this paper we will look at the development of the First Amendment and how newly enacted laws that will cause the government to label people or groups enacting this rights as extremist.

The Catcher in the Rye has no need to be censored as suggested in the thesis; “The Catcher in the Rye should not be censored. It is a novel from which high school students can benefit” because it is. The vulgar language included in the novel helps it to be descriptive and unique. Freedom of press contributes to the permission of having this novel at high schools. The Catcher in the Rye should not be censored for the sake of humanity’s individualism.

In modern day America, the topic of freedom of speech is widely disputed. More specifically in regards to when you are protected by our first amendment. It is extremely important to know what this right entitles as a way to protect yourself, as well as to keep yourself from looking like an idiot. For example, being banned from a social media site, such as Twitter, does not violate the constitution.¹ This is because Twitter is a private organization. This is also why you can be fired from your job if you say something incriminating on the internet.¹ The first amendment does not apply to private organizations. As well as this, you cannot be fined or punished for something such as not standing for the pledge. This is because it “is an act of political

The exercise of freedom of speech goes along way down the history of human civilization, and only positive results are there as the fruit of such level of human freedom. The world is a better place today, no doubt, because some men and women stood up their ground to speak their mind about what should be done and how things should be done to ensure prosperity. Despite the many gains of freedom of speech, the tragic reality is that some places still have the retrogressive rules that curtail people’s freedom to free speech, just to protect the ruling regimes (Melkonian, 2012).

Established in the Constitution, written in 1787, the Constitution guaranteed the citizens of the United States the rights of freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly in the First Amendment etched in the Bill of Rights. Throughout history, many Americans have experienced restrictions of freedom of speech during the United States earliest years as a country. John Adams, the second president of the United States, established the Alien and Sedition Act, which impeded upon Free Speech by restricting citizens from criticizing the government and president of their actions. Therefore, through the 1st Amendment, citizens should remain protected of their liberties in every aspect until they confiscate others of their liberties, and it should protect hate speech unless an individual’s liberties are in danger or under threat. The Supreme Court should define hate speech as threats that present another individual in obvious peril.

Simply put, free speech and its integral role in free society is fading, or rather: free society itself is fading. In our homes, we sit in our leather recliners with a can of forget and a bowl of regret, our mouths wide open, our eyes peeled watching our American gods of knowledge and opinion as they place their words into our mouths, into our hearts, and into our brains. And by our gods, we learn of our true identity - our box that our features and characteristics place us in, what we should really be thinking about, and which side of the political "fiesta" that we should be falling for. Likewise, the young adults in American Colleges are being taught standards of socio-ethical appeasement and continuing these “skills” from college into their daily lives: the fabric of American Society, which is a primary factor in the end of the First Amendment right of the American public. The American population is not only controlled (socio-politically) by the desires and politicization in the industries of advertisement and entertainment but also the “corrupted” situation of the American college, which are both extending the dissolution of free speech in the United States.

Freedom of speech had a link of positive impacts to the world. One positive impact would be the citizens questioning the government about their personal interests and opinion on free speech. This means that before freedom of speech was questioned, many citizens did not have a voice. The government was not concerned with increasing individual’s voices based on personal opinions and beliefs. When citizens began to question the government, the government had not one motive behind not giving individuals the opportunity to speak freely. This arouse more questioning and thoughts amongst citizens and government officials. The United States implemented the first amendment which is applied to all state and local governments. No one is restricted or