Importance Of Freedom Of Speech

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.

The right of freedom of speech is the ability to express one’s opinions without fear of government retaliation or censorship and social sanction. Basically this is the right to have your own opinions and be able to express them without interference from anyone. This right includes the ability to speak freely, to not speak, to protest, and it also protects the right to receive information. This right does not include the use of words that incite actions that could harm others and it doesn’t protect obscene materials and speeches.

Over time the Supreme Court has decided that certain aspects of freedom of speech are more important than others. For example, if someone used their First Amendment rights to lie about things they knew were false, threatened to commit a crime, insult another person, or used overly explicit content, the courts have moral grounds to prosecute those persons. It makes sense that if someone’s freedom of speech lessened another person’s right to freedom of religion or freedom of opinion by instilling fear, that is an unfair use of the First Amendment. These parameters, although not specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights are very important to protect everyone’s right to feel safe believing the things that they do.

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.

Free speech shall not incite evil and hatred in this country. The First Amendment prevents the government from infringing upon our freedom of assembly and speech. “The disability is so complete that Congress is expressly forbidden to enact laws respecting an establishment of religion, or laws abridging the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and press, and the right to petition the government” (Bybee). As a whole, our founding fathers only had good intentions with regards to First Amendment rights in America.

Harvey A. Silvergate stated in his article, “Muzziling Free Speech”, that “Our entire Country is a free speech zone, and that our campuses of higher education, of all places, cannot be an exception.” Free speech, in the form of hate speech, should be not regulated on American college campuses. Should hate speech be discouraged? Of course! However, developing policies that limit hate speech runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. The University of California System’s response to banning hate speech, speech codes in universities, law cases Doe v. University of Michigan and Sigma Chi Fraternity v George Mason University, and the view points of law professor Greg Margarian, proves why we should protect hate speech, even though it may seem wrong.

Freedom of speech, the most quoted right of the United States Constitution but, what does this freedom really mean? People have struggled over this issue time and time again, arguing a whole array of things from total censorship to none at all. According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" (First Amendment). Many argue that this gives U.S. citizens the right to say whatever they want, without exception. However, many disagree with this statement (maybe elaborate on this sentence). According to the Supreme Court there are a few exceptions to this freedom. Slander, defamation, fighting words and obscenity are all not protected under the First Amendment. The main issue derived from this is whether or not the government should be able to censor hate speech or if that is a violation of the Constitution. One one hand, it is argued that it should be allowed in order to protect minorities and individuals from being slandered and targeted. On the other hand, it is said that the government should not have that authority, as such laws will undoubtedly lead to censorship in a way that truly does limit free speech. These issues have been discussed and argued over for years, with the focus always returning to the text of the First Amendment. The First Amendment provides valuable guidance to the country and is viable on determining laws and court cases concerning the issue of hate speech in present day America. Although, it has proven

The Freedom of speech is very expansive filled with loop holes and with this comes many cases that have change the American history. The rights of free speech, free express for all such as gender, race, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or disability has help to encourage society development and helps to encourage equality for everyone. It is always bad intention to use the right of to fuel hate, prejudice and other crimes of violence. For example, Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case that challenged the speech of individual speech that was exhibit imminent lawless action or used words to incite or direct an action.

Although the First Amendment addresses the right of free speech, there are still limitations to what one can say or do to express his or her opinions. For example, threats, libel/slander, obscenity, and fighting words are illegal and can result in arrest depending on the extent of the crime. Despite these restrictions, there are some undesirable situations that the First Amendment still covers. These situations are considered unacceptable in society and can cause disruptions in everyday life. Yelling at a teacher, excessively snapping at employees, and causing interruptions during the national anthem or other honorable moments are all protected under the First Amendment, but they demonstrate times in which free speech should not be

The amendment gives us freedom of speech, but it is sensible enough to protect from fraud, defamation, shouting fire when there is no fire and etc. Those limitation is to keep from inciting riots and hurting individuals. However, hate speech is defined by dictionary.com as speech that, "attacks... a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability." But what if someone wanted to express their beliefs, such as a child saying they hate black bears at the zoo? The parent could either suggest to the child to be quite and ignore them (censorship) or tape their mouth shout and force them to follow the parent around the zoo (limiting free speech). This is an extreme

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.

As a constitutional right, people often exercise their right to freedom of speech believing that they also have the right to voice their opinions which can be provocative to opposing parties no matter where they stand. There is a defining line between what can be constituted as hate speech and free speech. Depending on the way that it is expressed, voicing an opinion can easily be misinterpreted causing certain people to feel threatened or attacked, then leading to dangerous physical outbursts. The right to exercise one’s own opinion that can challenge or provoke others should be deterred or at least limited if safety of all parties, even those not directly involved, cannot be guaranteed.

Firstly, the first amendment is freedom of speech, thought, and religion. The amendment is protected by the constitution for the people. For example, the constitution protects us from the government and how they could try to take advantage of us. Thus having a constitution for our amendments the government set limits on certain amendments such as the first one. Secondly, a person is allowed the, therefore they are technically allowed to say whatever they want. For instance, you can say whatever you please besides "fire" in a crowded area. The reason for that is because somebody could get hurt, and it is unsafe. Thirdly, in any situation a person could get hurt because of your words is a limit on your freedom of speech. To illustrate, Amnesty International an online source stated, every person has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas without fear or influence (Amnesty). Hence, not having all the freedom of speech but limited of speech. For all these reasons. There is no need for

The first ten amendments of the Constitution are often referred to as the Bill Of Rights, because these ten amendments give us our rights as US citizens. The first amendment gives us the right to freedom of speech, among other things. There have been many court cases on whether or not we have been given the right to use hate speech, and most of them have said that the freedom of speech gives us the right to use hate speech. Cases which have had this ruling include, but are not limited to: Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), and Snyder v. Phelps (2011).