In The United States All Citizens Have A Guaranteed Right

1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:

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).

Neil Gaiman once said, “The current total of countries in the world with First Amendments is one. You have guaranteed the freedom of speech. Other countries don’t have that.” At the time of the amendments’ creation, a vast majority of operating countries had not yet granted their people such freedoms. Granting every citizen of the United States this right seemed to have been an important landmark in this nation’s history. Along with others, this right is declared to the people in the first amendment of the constitution. The first amendment is the most important because it grants people freedom of speech, prohibits prior restraint, and declares the right to peaceable assembly.

All you ever hear about in the news lately is people getting in trouble for speech. Many Americans embrace freedom of speech for the same reasons they embrace other aspects of individualism. Freedom of speech is the right to defiantly, robustly and irreverently speak one's mind just because it is one's mind. Freedom of speech is thus bonded in special and unique ways to the human capacity to think, imagine and create. Conscience and consciousness are the sacred precincts of mind and soul. Freedom of speech is intimately linked to freedom of thought, to that central capacity to reason and wonder, hope and believe, that largely defines our humanity (Smolla).

Free speech is the backbone that holds democracy together.  Without a free speech, ideas would not be challenged, governments would not be kept in check, and citizens would not be free.  John Stuart Mill said once that, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person then he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”( Roleff, 21). The right to free speech is essential to “egalitarian democracy,”(Tsesis) however, this right is not absolute and must be limited in certain situations.

In this paper, I will be focusing on Jeremy Waldron and Catherine MacKinnon two great thinker that put forward two different outlooks on freedom of expression. First, I will explain Jeremy Waldron view on freedom of expression, why it is fatuous to restrict freedom of expression while doing so, I will explain why he believes there should be no limits to freedom of expression. Second, I will explain Catherine MacKinnon account of freedom of expression, why she believes it is necessary to limit freedom of speech and her new model. Afterwards, I will explain which argument is correct, providing counter-arguments and, why I support one account over the other. The thesis of the paper will argue that Waldron view of freedom of expression is more justifiable because, of his belief that when limiting free speech you are censoring one group over the other.

The U.S. has always been a "melting pot". People from all over the world come to the U.S. Under U.S. law, both legal and illegal immigrants have enjoyed almost all of the same constitutional rights. There are only few rights that only the citizens have, such as the right to vote and the right to run for federal elections. Those exceptions are listed in the Constitution. Non-citizens should have the same constitutional rights as the U.S. citizens. If the non-citizens do enjoy the same constitutional rights with other U.S. citizens, then the Arizona Immigration Law clearly was unconstitutional.

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It reinforces all other human rights, allowing society to develop and progress. The ability to express our opinion and speak freely is essential to bring about change in society.” Freedom of Speech grants you the right and privilege to speak your mind without facing any type of consequence . I strongly believe that censorship and the lack of free speech can and will cause a negative effect on our world.

Freedom of speech in America is defined by the right to express any opinions without any censorship or restraint. But it isn’t just defined by the words people speak aloud. It’s the actions they take part in to support the words they express. The writing of books and essays, creating artwork, giving speeches to grand crowds, voting, protesting. But do all people have the right to speak their mind? Should people be able to speak freely, to express opinions and thoughts, as promised in the United States constitution? A controversial topic, with many different opinions weighing in from around the world.

Almost upon entering Canada, immigrants receive a permanent resident status, which gives them almost all the same rights as a citizen, until they eventually receive their citizenship. Living in a new country can be difficult. There is a new language, new rules, and a new beginning for everything that had previously been achieved, without the help and support of old the jobs, houses, friends, and relatives. With all that an immigrant has to cope with, the last thing they fancy is to be treated as an outsider when they are in need of employment and housing assistance, or health services. When one is accepted for permanent residence, one has access to all social social services, and has the same constitutional rights as a Canadian citizen. One

On this world today free speech has been a standout amongst the most battled after rights in the United Conditions of America. The right to speak freely was received on December 15, 1791. The right to speak freely is secured by the main correction in the Constitution of United States, which is the privilege to explain one’s suppositions and thoughts without dread of government countering or control, or societal endorse. Free discourse is imperative in the public arena since we are allowed to create as individuals and end up noticeably mindful of what is happening around us. The right to speak freely played an extremely vital part in how and our identity today and is the principle motivation behind why we

Freedom of speech usually refers to a citizen's right to the expression and distribution of their opinions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines freedom of speech as a human right, stating that "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference". It also states that all people have the right to express and share these opinions and exchange information through any medium of communication they choose. It is important that speech and expression of speech be distinctly defined, as the method of expression can be very subjective. For example, free speech in the United States has two limitations; disruption of the peace and incitation of violence. If the speech, or manner of expression of that speech is causing a stir in an otherwise peaceful area or group of people, the speaker can be legally "censored" by the police.

To have a free and democratic society the basic right of free speech as expressed in the First Amendment of The Constitution is absolutely necessary. In the first amendment it states, “Congress shall make

In John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty, he declares that people should be able to express their opinions and not be silenced by the majority or ruling class, because in Mill’s opinion discussion and debate is good for the wellbeing of society. By suppressing unpopular opinions, it delays progress and intellectual thought. Mill’s argument regarding the defense of the freedom to express opinions is effective, yet compared to his harm principle it does not stand logically. While superficially his argument seems strong, there are contradictions in his belief based on his earlier assertion of the utility to protect from harm that can be seen in the relatable examples given and the act of straw manning throughout his writing.

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.