Persuasive Speech On Freedom Of Speech

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.

     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

“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.

The First Amendment, in substance, does not provide absolute protection for all forms of speech, press, assembly, petition and association. It is not absolute. As a balance for interest of speech against competing government interest, an evolution of balancing tests were created and modified by the Supreme Court hence the Free Speech Clause.

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.

The First Amendment was adopted in 1791. It states that “Congress shall make no law 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.” (Wikipedia, 2016) The freedom of speech documented in the First Amendment is not only a constitutional protection, but also an inevitable part of democratic government and independence, which are essential values in our society. “Censorship,” according to the ACLU, “… is the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others”. (ACLU, 2016) That is why the American citizen’s right to free speech should be held as the highest virtue and any censorship of freedom of speech should not be allowed, but only respected. Not to mention that censorship is unconstitutional.

Although the first amendment was to protect the people from the government censoring their freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceably assemble and grievances however there are some exceptions. The first amendment provides

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 United States Constitution grants American citizens the freedom of speech. This single line in the First Amendment has been a staple of American culture since its ratification on December 15, 1791 (Constitution Center, 2018). The Founders recognized the significance of this freedom and the power it had to shape a young nation. It was George Washington who declared-“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter” (Global Research, 2016). The legal definition of this vision is “the right to express information, ideas, and opinions- free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2018). Consequently, this sole clause

"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.” I am a strong supporter of free speech. Often times I am in complete disagreement with what is being said, but I realize others have just as much right as me to share their thoughts and opinions. If they are stifled, I will be also.

An important thing to know about freedom of speech is it does not actually protect anything we want to say. However freedom of speech is something that the United States holds high. The first amendment of our constitution is one of the most important amendments we have to protect us. The first amendment gives us the right to free speech with very few limits. Even though this may not be the best policy it is important we protect any speech so long as it is not harming anyone. The constitution says “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. (Madison)” This is saying that the freedom of speech is protected by the constitution and congress cannot make laws to limit anything covered by freedom

The United States Constitution grants American citizens the freedom of speech. This single line in the First Amendment has been a staple of American culture since its ratification on December 15, 1791 (Constitution Center, 2018). The Founders recognized the significance of this freedom and the power it had to shape a young nation. It was George Washington who declared-“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter” (Global Research, 2016). The legal definition of this vision is “the right to express information, ideas, and opinions- free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). This sole clause has been the subject

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that government “shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. I. Nevertheless, the First Amendment protection of free speech is not absolute; even protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times. ACLU of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 333 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2003). However, traditional public forums such as streets,

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.

As always, there are those individuals that oppose the power to censor. There are members of society that believe in the freedom to speak publicly and to publish. This is a basic belief in the freedom of expression and is to be protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. On the eve of the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, the first wave of a nationwide survey, comprising more than 1500 citizens was conducted. Through this survey it was found that American rate free speech as their second most precious First Amendment right and regard a free press highly in the abstract. Although there are strong cases made for and against censorship, the rising trend calling for censorship can threaten our basic rights to free expression and the right to be informed. At the center of the debate is the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees our right to read, speak, write, and communicate freely. The government at the state or federal level cannot