Persuasive Speech On Freedom Of Speech

     Since this country was founded, we have had a set of unalienable rights that our constitution guarantees us to as Americans. One of the most important rights that is mentioned in our constitution is the right to free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the

For example once I had to say this to a person that was being a bully “I got a little brother and a little sister that crayon all over my books, and I got a dog that eats them and poops on them and that's just inside my own family, and I’m not gonna have nobody else messing with my books!” Even though I am clearly mad in this case I still spoke with confidence I spoke clearly and I had evidence for the situation I was in.

George Orwell once famously said ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' This sentence sums up the very essence of free speech; it is, as Orwell believed, the mother of all civil rights. Without the unconditional freedom to offend it cannot exist. Ideas are, more often than not, dangerous things. There is little point in having freedom of speech if it only defends the most popular and innocuous of opinions. The freedom to offend can perpetrate racial, social or religious intolerance; however, conversely, it is also the only means available to fight against such bigotry. Free speech is not something to work towards when the world is ‘better'; it is, rather, the vital tool through

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

“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.

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.

To begin, the very first amendment to the United States Constitution grants citizens with the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech is generally the right to express your own opinion without restrictions. This typically includes the right not to speak if you do not want to, the right to advertise goods, products, and services, and even the right to use certain derogatory words and/or phrases to transfer political beliefs. However, citizens often get confused about what is actually granted within the right and what is not. For example, if you are in a public place with a good

The First Amendment protects an individual's freedom of speech and assembly and 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" (U.S. Const. amend. I).

The first amendment of the United States 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 (Bill of Rights Institute).” In simpler words this amendments means that any citizen may practice any religion that he or she identifies as their faith. It also grants all citizens the right to free speech. Free speech means that an individual can say whatever they wish, without any restrictions, even if the words are inappropriate, disrespect any political leader or disrespect the government itself. We have a right to say what we desire. The first amendment along with granting the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion, allows freedom of press. This allows the press the ability to publish what they desire, even if it is absurd or incorrect. The second amendment of the United States Constitution states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed (Bill of Rights Institute).” The second amendment grants

The first amendment to the United States Constitution protects people’s rights to their freedom of speech. Words can be very offensive, however, how someone responds to them depends on the type of misconduct being construed and the person it is offending. A person who calls themselves a true Christian may take the bibles approach which states in Matthew 5:39 “If anyone slaps you on the right cheek also,” meaning do not retaliate. Someone who may voice their opinion could either diffuse the situation or make it much worse depending on the type of offensive misconduct that is taking place. The way someone was brought up, their mental stability, morals and ethics I believe would depend on how one responds to something they may find offensive.

Hearing what the person who made the offensive comment has to say can also help lighten the situation. Often times, the comment was a simple mistake, and the offender meant no harm by it. "It's important to give the other person the benefit of the doubt because, in fact, he may not have realized that the comment was offensive, and if you had not spoken up, would have had no idea of its impact on you." (Cole 312). Other times, an offender may see how their comment may be seen as rude to some people, and adjust their future behavior accordingly. Even if an offender refuses to admit that their comment was offensive, opening a dialogue with them about how their comment made others feel can start a change on how they view such

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.

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

“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.

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.