Limitations Of Free Speech

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

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.

Is there ever a time that Americans take their freedom of speech too far? For many years, Americans have gotten more lenient on how loosely they interpret the First Amendment. In the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment clearly states, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”, but that does not mean people can say anything without being prosecuted. Although there are times the government may be too harsh on restricting free speech, Americans can be prosecuted for crossing the bounds of their free speech because, after all, it is our right to speak especially of serious matters and news, not every single opinion or thought we have; telling someone to kill himself or threatening the President's life is crossing the line, but most importantly, all citizens need to know their rights in order to know what they can or cannot say.

Under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause a public flag burning in protest of a recently enacted law would protected because it is a form of expression (Hall, 2015). The Supreme Court has recognized more than just spoken words are protected rights under the Free Speech Clause, and freedom of expression through acts are included, so flag burning is a protected right (Hall, 2015). Next, an advertisement for potato chips found on a billboard is also protected under the Free Speech Clause. The advertisement is considered visual and written expression, which is a protected form of expression (Hall, 2015). Last, the placing of a hand over one’s heart while the national anthem is played is another form of nonverbal expression (Hall, 2015).

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.

The espionage act of (1917) during the world war I violated the freedom of speech while the United States was in war and five other declared war. For this reason, they refused from accepting people to withdraw from the army. Drafting resulted in the violation of humans right. In the court case Cohen v. California involved the violation of the freedom of speech. Cohen was charged for “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct.” (Fisher and Harriger, 2016, p.479). Cohen was not happy with the draft stated his disagreement to the Vietnam war by wearing a jacket that says “Fuck The Draft. Stop The War” his statement was considered a violating under the California’s law by going

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also

“People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love” (Obama). The First Amendment establishes that people have the right to have freedom of speech and religion. However, Does freedom of speech ever goes too far? Should there be a difference between hate speech and freedom of speech? Hate speech should not be labeled free speech, because it encourages violence in society, while freedom of speech has been expressed.

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

Free speech is a right to be practiced by a conscious human as Mill says. He writes that human liberty has three main types of classifications: the domain of consciousness, liberty of tastes and pursuits, and the freedom to unite for the purpose of not causing harm to others. As a result, I agree that the harm principle must the only objection that should limit to this notion, as a more utilitarian society is what is more favoured for maximum pleasure. It is evident that Mill realizes that a person, we have our own independent autonomy, which he acknowledges throughout the text.

Imagine yourself in a world where you could not say what you wanted, or express how you feel. Everyday thoughts that are said out loud like, “Man, this lesson is dumb” were no longer permitted to be anything other than thoughts. Many people in other countries have rules and regulations on what they can and cannot say. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives Americans the right to free speech (Lakoff 260). Learning to speak is something our parents praise us for when we are little. Why, after all the waiting time they endured, would parents let strangers decide what their child could or could not say. Censorship of language and speech is becoming too strict.

Everybody has rights to freedom of speech, but when there is freedom of speech without limits or restrictions, there is no doubt that this will lead to disaster. People will surely benefit if we are able balance between freedom of speech and restrictions to ensure that society can communicate and prosper without anarchy.

Freedom of speech should have some limitations. The American people should have the right to say whatever they want, but to an extent. Whether it is on signs or verbally some things should not be expressed. The United States is well known for being “the home of the free,” but some people take their freedom a bit too far. People can burn flags, protest at military funerals, even use the “n” word and watching pornography in libraries.

Freedom of speech allows students to express how they feel. Freedom of speech in schools is monitored through technology as well as what people say and do. What if students could show up to school promoting foul and offensive language or not following rules? When freedom of speech is not limited, the behavior of kids worsens. Freedom of speech in schools should be limited because it helps with respect, it teaches students to think before speaking, and it shows students that their reputation matters.

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.