Persuasive Freedom Of Speech

In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and

We all know our rights. Most of us do paid attend, to them in school. Do you know what is the Fourth Amendment is? If, you have forgotten, it is our right to privacy. Or from the Bill of Right “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment).” This can be from our homes, people, schools, and our cars. Why is this important to us? What is searches and seizures? What is privacy? What should we know about this amendment? Do we have an expectation

Attention Getter: During World War 2 Japanese Emperor Isoroku Yamamoto was quoted saying “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

“I have opinions that, frankly, a lot of people are thinking. They just won't tell people. They don't pollsters. They don't tell journalists. But they think it” (Lieberman). These are the words of conservative blogger and self-proclaimed “provocateur,” Milo Yiannopoulos. Yiannopoulos had been scheduled to speak at the UC Berkeley campus, but given UC Berkeley Police Department’s security concerns surrounding his appearance, the event had been cancelled. Yiannopoulos argues that his First Amendment right had been violated and vows to return for a future event, “Free Speech Week.” Additionally, Ku Klux Klan activist Chris Cantwell has been invited to speak. The University argues that due to Yiannopoulos’ past doxing activities and the threat of violence associated with his presence, it is not required to accommodate such speech. In this memo, I will provide legal precedents arguing that 1) “Free Speech Week” should be permitted to proceed with or without Chris Cantwell, 2) the associated KKK rallies should be permitted to proceed, and 3) a counter-argument addressing the strengthening of civil disobedience.

I appreciate all that you have done. Thank you for your time being a Senator for Iowa for 36 years. You have done a great job of speaking out for our state. I understand it must be hard to be Senator. Having to listen to everyone must be difficult.

I am here to ask for you to cast your vote against the new upcoming bill allowing people to carry concealed weapons across states. The Second amendment stretches for people to carry weapons with them for safety, but not for carrying weapons across states for protection. The second amendment would not support this kind of bill simply because the bill is mainly for self protection like weapons to be stored at home, not in the public eye. The constitution has been extended a far enough point where we must stop and see the better of where this constitution is taking us. Your vote can mean anything from allowing a ridiculous bill from being passed.

Hillary Clinton in an CNN interview on Friday completely pandered to the BLM followers with her "white people and cops must change to help reduce the number of African-Americans killed in tense exchanges with cops".

The delegates filled Independence Hall with raucous applause. The voiceover of a Fox New pundit began narrating the scene.

The NFL protest is a silent protest to police brutality and institutional racism. In Between the World and Me, Coates brings attention to institutional racism and police brutality. They are both extremely common in America. The NFL protest is an act of patriotism and brings awareness to institutional racism, but some Americans find it disrespectful to the national anthem.

History does not change. Malcolm X once said, “I don’t even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it intelligence.

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

While some believe freedom of speech violates the rights of others, it is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. In this argumentative essay, I’ll discuss why freedom of speech is important, but it’s not the only important right that we have. Yes, freedom of speech should be absolute, but we should not give anyone the chance to define reasonable restrictions. But 'hate speech' should strictly be restricted, as it infringes on free speech of others.

The right to free speech is one of the most precious rights an individual has as a citizen of the United States of America. This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind and give their opinions of what they think should happen. These rights have been questioned and exercised throughout history, and have produced extremely positive things in a lot of cases. In modern times, people are always protesting something and in the colonial times it was the same. People wanted their voice to be heard and as long as it is done in a peaceful manner it is legal now, but it resulted in punishment for the colonists. People have never questioned whether or not these rights should exist, the questions involve whether there should be limits or not. No matter what side the authorities take, there are only two main points to deal with cyberstalking: free speech is an essential right, but it should not be meant to include hate speech.

We all have nipples. Male or female, everyone has them. For some strange reason, nipples belonging to a female are a much bigger deal than those belonging to a male. I strongly believe that it should be made legal for women to be topless in public. It’s only fair. Our society has so many double standards regarding the exposure of nipples, whether it be just walking around in public with no top on, or posting photos online where nipples are visible. Today I’m going to give you some background information on the sexualisation and demonization of female nipples and why they shouldn’t be treated any different to men.

Although the United States is considered to be a “free country”, censorship is still a problem today. According to The First Amendment to the U.S constitution guarantees, the right to free speech. However, some commonly censorship in the United States include the displacement of excessive of graphic violence, government licensing media companies and journalists, creating stealth, fake new sources, and even the removal of LGBTQ+ content. The word “censorship” means the suppression of free speech, often the removal of speech that harms or offends the public. Despite the fact the word is often associated with governmental restrictions in free speech, we are still faced with non-governmental challenges. For instance, recently Youtube has regulated its policy and has restricted “forms of content from being included in videos being monetized with advertising, including strong violence, language, sexual content, and "controversial or sensitive subjects and events”. It has been evidential that LGBTQ+ videos have been restricted or removed from Youtube because of the fear that the video will be controversial. Thus, since the video does not fit the heterosexual normality America has, in the eyes of Youtube, the video should be removed. However, on the other hand a video of Logan Paul vlogging on someone’s suicide and laughing about the hanging body was trending on Youtube and was deleted by Paul himself after receiving backlash. In other words, although censorship in countries like