How Can Offensive Language Not Be Protected

The difference between offensive words and oppressive slurs are there intent and impact they have on the recipient. Many words can be offensive in today 's world, and as the line between being politically correct and free speech becomes muddled, it’s easy for the words that comes out of our mouths to be hurtful. For example, calling someone “stupid” today would be

Despite that students now use profanity in their public schools and even more out of school, this could cause more children and teens to use the offensive language around their peers.

          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.

According to the University of Colorado, many political jurisdictions have enacted laws that forbid destructive speech. These laws give the police power to investigate persons suspect of committing hate speech. If found guilty, the persons are tried and punished according to the law. Although many insist that hate speech should be illegal, the First Amendment still stands; the right of free speech applies to every citizen of the United States and if restrictions are set, then that liberty is taken away.

Unfortunately, some people use this freedom to offend others. Though it can hurt others, there is nothing that can be done to stop people offending others. The truth is that the First Amendment is necessary. Free speech separates superior ideas from abominable ones and is the best defense against controlling government ("First Amendment" n.p.). "You don't have to love the First Amendment just acknowledge that we all need it" (Nott n.p.). This proves that, without this amendment, the government could freely restrict what the people hear, see, and read. Therefore, the only valid solution is for the people to change, not the First Amendment. If the First Amendment is changed, people will have to forfeit some of their rights to the government. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect speech from government interference and changing the amendment will only take power from the people (Nott

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

The first amendment to the constitution is one that never seems to be debated itself, but its interpretation is often times debated. In saying this I mean that most everyone agrees that people should have the right to free speech, but what is often debated is where to draw the line. The question is, what is the difference is between someone using their right to free speech and them spewing hate speech. The first amendment is quite possibly the most important to maintaining our form government. It allows us, the people to have a say and speak on political topics among other things. The full first amendment, which was officially put into place alongside the second amendment in 1791, is made up of, for the most part, two basic points. It touches on religion and preventing freedom of speech or press “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.” The first of these points that touches on religion was first formed based upon one of the main reasons that

There are four general situations in which freedom of speech should be banned. The first one is Clear and present danger: Freedom of speech will not be protected if the words that come from any person's mouth put in danger someone else, provoke violence, or even incite or suggest illegal actions. A second situation is fighting words: These are the terms socially know to rage anyone, and when they are told face-to-face to a second person, they are not protected by the first amendment because they tend to alter public order and stimulate violence. The third main situation in freedom of speech is known as libel and slander: In this situation the Supreme Court explains that when speech or communication is used to damage someone else's reputation, to lie, or to tergiversate the truth and make it look as something it is not, it is not covered under the first amendment. The forth and last boundary of the first amendment is referred to as time, place and manner: This particular scenario does not disallow the content of the speech itself, but it takes into consideration the place where the speech is given, and the way the person presents the speech. If under any circumstance the government interests or regularities are violated, the speech is not protected under the first amendment.

To begin, the very first amendment to the United States Constitution grants citizens with the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech is generally the right to express your own opinion without restrictions. This typically includes the right not to speak if you do not want to, the right to advertise goods, products, and services, and even the right to use certain derogatory words and/or phrases to transfer political beliefs. However, citizens often get confused about what is actually granted within the right and what is not. For example, if you are in a public place with a good

The first amendment often gets used in the wrong ways also. Some people believe that saying untrue, offensive or, problem causing things falls under Freedom of Speech for example “if a man is falsely shouting fire and causing a panic” he will not be protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment was established to protect those in need of protecting, not to be taken advantage by those that abuse the system. A few more things that the First Amendment will not protect you from are hate speech, inciting violence, supporting terrorism, public employee speech, defamation, intellectual property and, true threats. Freedom of Expression is a basic human right.

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 first amendment to the United States Constitution protects people’s rights to their freedom of speech. Words can be very offensive, however, how someone responds to them depends on the type of misconduct being construed and the person it is offending. A person who calls themselves a true Christian may take the bibles approach which states in Matthew 5:39 “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek also,” meaning do not retaliate. Someone who may voice their opinion could either diffuse the situation or make it much worse depending on the type of offensive misconduct that is taking place. The way someone was brought up, their mental stability, morals and ethics I believe would depend on how one responds to something they may find offensive.

I think that the first amendment does protect the freedom of speech but it doesn't protect the right to say things which make others feel less important. I think that the first amendment should only

Freedom of expression has always been a heated and heavily debated topic throughout our society, more so in recent times due to the increasing amount of freedoms that we gain. However, it is only natural that free speech be something of extreme amounts of conflict since this right is expressed in the very first amendment of the Constitution. But, how loosely should such an important document within our history be interpreted? This has been a question for years, and it is obvious that this particular amendment presents itself through our day-to-day activities. The real issue with freedom of speech is that, even though it is presented to us, there are obviously people who would abuse it to invoke emotional distress, or even to invoke acts of

It is imperative that these same principles are utilized when communicating to cultural groups other than our own because people from different cultures encode and decode messages and meaning differently. Because of this, what is acceptable to one is not necessarily acceptable by the other especially if they base their practices on their own judgments and ideas and communicate disregarding the judgments and ideas of any other culture. Ignorance can lead to devastating and damaging assumptions in terms of building intercultural relationships when one enters communication using the same old ethnocentric approach. It is a lot like the Nazis viewing the world according to their standards and beliefs without regards to the rights and beliefs of any other group. It is also the same as extreme