Limits Of Freedom Of Speech

Most obviously there is a line between free speech and discrimination, free speech and bullying, free speech and defamation, free speech and religious intolerance ect. No matter the law or the right there is always certain restriction that are imposed to keep tolerance exercising in a conflicted society

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.

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The first amendment, the right of freedom of speech is one of the most important classic fantasy to almost anyone living in the United States, building the foundation of our nation. This right gives us plenty of different opportunities to express our opinions and political viewpoints on any issues in America. But it comes with a price, people have been protesting multiple different events trying to prevent people from expressing opposing opinions or political viewpoints on that has issues in America. For the minority of people, expressing a different opinion should be protected no matter how controversial or insensitive it may be.

In today's society though, people are starting to become extremely confused on what the First Amendment actually covers. For example, burning the American flag in a protest is actually protected by the First Amendment, but many people see burning the

The limitations of first amendment protections are pretty clearly defined in a huge body of case law ranging from chief justice Holmes, “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” ruling in Schenk vs US in 1919 to the Snyder vs Phelps in 2015 , upholding the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to make homophobic statements in public.

In his USA Today report, Eric Brady states, “that most Americans find flag burning, cross burning and homophobic protests at military funerals deeply offensive. "Yet the First Amendment takes out of the hands of government the authority to channel those majority sensibilities into law and exercise viewpoint discrimination over such expression,". While Brady may just be reporting on a court filing, his article brings to light a very strong argument: “the government possesses no general governing power to police offensive or disparaging speech." (Source E) so, the First Amendment guarantees that the government’s opinions will never overpower those of the citizens’. Ultimately, what is at stake here is ensuring we uphold the Constitution of the United States, which sets the standards on how we govern and protect our

The first amendment, of the Constitution, protects all citizens from Congress making laws that “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.” Most U.S citizens how this amendment, or at least a summary of it, memorized. Citizens have the right to speak their mind as they sit fit, practice any religion, and protest. However, in modern times, it is understandable to see why this is not entirely true. Court decisions have put many restrictions on the liberties presented in the 1st amendment. A citizen cannot use religion as an excuse for sacrifices, or protest in violent fashions. The most controversial, and complicated, restrictions are those prohibiting certain kinds of speech. One of the Supreme is that obscenity is not protected under the freedom of speech. A problem quickly raise was: what, exactly, is obscenity? Under Miller v California, to be obscene “a publication must, taken as whole, appeal to prurient interest, must contain patently offensive depictions or descriptions of specified sexual conduct, and on the whole have no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” It made sense to ban specific types of speech that was, at the root, meant to be hateful or obscene. However, Indianapolis legislator, in American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut, used

Freedom of Speech is possibly the most respected American ideal. Envied by citizens of countries where self-expression is a right of some and stricken from others, we uphold this concept with defensive pride. However, we must ask ourselves if this freedom can ever go too far. When does lenience turn into naivety? If speech is abused so freely that it enslaves the minds of another should it become a privilege, rather than a right? In his essay “On Racist Speech”, Charles R. Lawrence III argues for limitations on Freedom of Speech as described in the First Amendment to prevent only the most heinous racial remarks. While I understand why many Americans initially find limiting freedom of speech contradictory to the concept of our free states,

In America we have freedom of speech we have the right to speak our minds and opinions. The First amendment states “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.” Therefore, the question is should their be a speech restriction by law? or Should their be no restrictions? I feel there shouldn't be speech restrictions by law, In America there are restrictions on speech that are not protected by the government restrictions. The restrictions include defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography and threats. I feel theses

The first amendment is a very important right for everyone, but should certain “offensive” speech be protected? “Offensive” is defined as causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry; also can mean insulting, isolating, derogatory, disrespectful and abusive. It isolates and separates others in different ways. We should respect others and how they feel. When others speak freely about whatever they desire it imposes on others freedom to not want to hear what others are saying.

The first amendment of the United States says that as a United States citizen we have the freedom to speak what we believe. We have been given the right to speak our mind in public and let our views be heard. But does this mean we can insult our listeners or be harsh to them according to race or gender? Does this mean we can speak without any regard for others views and personal feelings? No it does not. By allowing everyone to speak their mind in public, it would cause havoc and disarray among us. This is why certain people should censor the speech beforehand to make sure it has no abrasive material and will be beneficial to the public.

The debate about having complete freedom of speech, or having restrictions on freedom of speech can be complicated. As an American we are allowed to express and say what we feel and believe in. People should not have any restrictions on freedom of speech, but people should respect others, and not act or say harmful things about other population or person. People do not need to get offensive with anyone it is all about how you say things that can make a difference. Racism has been around for years, working together as a society we can end it if we all put effort into it and try to understand why and what makes others different than us, we might learn something new we can create a better society and end all the hatred in our world.

Freedom of Speech means that an individual has the right to express their opinion without censorship or restrictions. It means that a person can say whatever they want and not be censored, but they may have to face criminal charges and consequences if they speak something that can injure people or if what they say are threats. For example, a person cannot yell “FIRE” or “BOMB” if there is no such threat. So, are there times where a person should be censored? Yes, there are times where a person should be censored. A person could write about a topic that can cause chaos and rioting. For example, if someone posts that the government is constantly watching us, then some people might protest and riot. Should people be protected from all offensive

First, the government does not have the right to make laws abridging the freedom of speech. Free speech preserves liberty by preventing the spread of uncontrollable power. Free speech serves as a “check and balance” for the Government limiting it will take away that form of check and balance. “The 1st amendment was founded from the principles of John Locke. Under the social compact, sovereignty always rests with the people, who never surrender their natural right to protest, or even revolt, when the state exceeds the limit of legitimate authority” (Milovanovic). John Locke followed principles that should be fully enforced. Although some people may say hurtful things, it is still their opinion. 70% of Americans agreed that people should have the right to free speech, even if their words are offensive. Also, Freedom of Speech is a civilian 's way to check