America has always been hailed as the one country in the world that was built on the very principle of freedom; the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Yet with the rise of particular ideological movements we have found ourselves creating new barriers for freedom of the most potent utility we posses. Speech.
Whether violent protests, public inflammatory remarks, assault, ostracization, or the like. Suppression of one's ability to vocalize themselves in one direction or another has been rampant in the past few months. Instead of an election uniting the American people, it has polarized them further towards their respective sides of the political field. Speech has become volatile and feared by
…show more content…
To many of them Mr. Trump/ Hillary/ Bernie speaks in absolutes, there is no right or wrong, there is what Trump believes and their isn’t. In online communities participation is limited only to zealots. Places that claim to be interested in the benefit of the whole have distilled themselves to distributors of the dogmatic minority. The “right” opinions become truths while the wrong are quickly dismissed through objective claims or other unfalsifiable means. The challenger would “fail to make sense” or “not be able to use logic”, two completely illegitimate claims that do nothing to defend from debate but disregard the speaker as “unable to think properly”, and therefore ignorable. Disarming is easier than …show more content…
But the repercussions should be made known, their are very explicit dangers that come with senseless following.
Dedication to a particular set of morals and beliefs creates an agar for violence. If people are nothing more than their thoughts, and speech is nothing more than an expression of thought, then having an ideology challenged is not much different than a physical affront. The prospect of one's ideology being wrong produces anxiety and fear, a volatile mixture. Now take a country who has two groups of people, both staunch supporters of their side, make them fearful and anxious of each other, and you have a time bomb waiting to go off.
By maintaining a free thinking and individual opinion one sacrifices group protection and must rely on him/ herself to defend their beliefs. It doesn’t seem quite as cozy as having a safety net to fall back on, yet it accomplishes something very important. It decollectivizes the anger and fear that manifests in a group. It denies opportunities for massive outbursts of violence while honing the intellectual edge of the
According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).
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.
1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:
Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to agree, not to listen and not to support one’s own antagonists. A “right” does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort (n.p).
America’s first president George Washington once argued at the [whenever he said this] that “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” It is an essential component to the daily life of any constitutional republic, such as that of the United States even though it is a right granted to all American citizens, in the past, freedom of speech has been abridged to accommodate political correctness, to prevent disruptive behavior that could negatively affect others, and to protect confidential military information.
Free speech is by far the most commonly recognized freedom in our everyday lives. The freedom of speech allows us to voice our own opinions without the severe repercussions of some countries. It allows us to say what we really feel and helps us learn how to communicate in true and meaningful ways. Along with this freedom, we must remember that there are limits to this freedom. While being arrested “you have the right to remain silent” and anything you say can be used against you in court. This freedom is not one to be taken for
All you ever hear about in the news lately is people getting in trouble for speech. Many Americans embrace freedom of speech for the same reasons they embrace other aspects of individualism. Freedom of speech is the right to defiantly, robustly and irreverently speak one's mind just because it is one's mind. Freedom of speech is thus bonded in special and unique ways to the human capacity to think, imagine and create. Conscience and consciousness are the sacred precincts of mind and soul. Freedom of speech is intimately linked to freedom of thought, to that central capacity to reason and wonder, hope and believe, that largely defines our humanity (Smolla).
Now a days, you have to watch what you say, how you say it, and where you say what you think in order to a) not offend those around you and b) to avoid government (whether local, state or federal) scrutiny. It appears that now a days anything and everything that is said has some form of backlash. We are
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law
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
Free speech is the backbone that holds democracy together. Without a free speech, ideas would not be challenged, governments would not be kept in check, and citizens would not be free. John Stuart Mill said once that, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person then he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”( Roleff, 21). The right to free speech is essential to “egalitarian democracy,”(Tsesis) however, this right is not absolute and must be limited in certain situations.
Lipmann uses diction, simile, and syntax to emphasize the hypocrisy of Americans who claim to support the freedom of speech for selfish interests rather than productive discussions that represent opposing arguments. Lippmann uses diction throughout this piece to showcase the strength the freedom of expression gives Americans. He uses powerful words with extremely positive or extremely negative connotations. He uses the word ‘indispensable’ when describing how the freedom of speech should be revered as, ‘magnanimous’ to describe people who are determined to protect the freedom of speech, and lastly, ‘suppressed’ to describe what is happening with the freedom of speech in America. By using such strong vocabulary it draws the reader’s attention to the power in the author’s voice that shines through his words.
People stand their ground when we believe in something and at times don’t listen to what others are trying to say or give their reasons about their beliefs, but others also have to be tolerant and find the time to listen and understand. So much goes on in the everyday lives and people are all preoccupied with lives and problems. There are amazing people out there that have great ideas and opinions and there are lots of people that will listen and try to understand and have more compassion for what is going on around the
Consider this ontological interrogative: why do people go against what they know to be correct all for the sake of limiting confrontational disputes that will challenge them to profess their beliefs which go against the majority? It is incredibly disadvantageous for one to go against what they believe in their heart all for the sake of fitting in. Imagine for a moment what the world would look like if pioneers corroborated with the notion of those that oppose their personal beliefs. There are an immeasurable number of trailblazers that paved the way for all of us to enjoy our lives that we have now. The efforts of said torchbearers would be in vain if we return to this sheep-like mindset solely to follow orders without asking questions, disputing their ideas with theoretical considerations that will thwart their opposition. The creative genius and intellectual prowess is what propels our ship carrying the fate of our human race to the stable ground of progress rather than to our
On this world today free speech has been a standout amongst the most battled after rights in the United Conditions of America. The right to speak freely was received on December 15, 1791. The right to speak freely is secured by the main correction in the Constitution of United States, which is the privilege to explain one’s suppositions and thoughts without dread of government countering or control, or societal endorse. Free discourse is imperative in the public arena since we are allowed to create as individuals and end up noticeably mindful of what is happening around us. The right to speak freely played an extremely vital part in how and our identity today and is the principle motivation behind why we