73 % Say Freedom Of Speech Worth Dying For Essay

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” (George Orwell). Whether the opinion is of extreme offense or not, censorship is not the answer nor is the limitation of the freedom of speech. Emerging the truth, can only be possible through the opposition of ideas, thus with no boundries, the full protection of freedom of speech is a necessary quality of any society.

It can be argued that freedom of speech should be allowed in society for two main reasons. Firstly, freedom of speech is regarded as a basic human right. It is stated in the Universal Declaration

“Expression may be symbolic, as well as verbal. Symbolic speech is conduct that expresses an idea. Although speech is commonly thought of as verbal expression, we are all aware of nonverbal communication. Sit-ins, flag waving, demonstrations, and wearing…protest buttons are examples of symbolic speech. While most forms of conduct could be said to express ideas in some way, only some conduct is protected as symbolic speech. In analyzing such cases, the courts ask whether the speaker intended to convey a particular message, and whether it is likely that the message was understood by those who viewed it. In order to convince a court that symbolic conduct should be punished and not protected as speech, the government must show it has an important reason. However, the reason cannot be that the government disapproves of the message conveyed by the symbolic conduct” (Arbertman 442-3).

When I was young, I thought freedom of speech was the right say and write what you want and everyone who saw would have to except those words. As I got older and the world seemed a little bit colder, I realized that I was right to an extent, but I didn’t fully grasp true freedom of speech as a child. Eventually, while my new understanding isn’t all too different, I did find that my new way of thinking was better off to be heard. Now I see that freedom of speech isn’t exactly the right to say what you want and when you want, but is actually the right to say it without fear of being prosecuted. While many don’t see much of a difference from that, it’s a world’s difference to me. This may be the case, but my own personal opinion on the matter

In the early 21st century there are many issues that arise within societies. Whether the issues are based on freedoms, rights, or power of government. The way we handle these situations is to look at the US Constitution for guidance as the country tries to figure out a solution. One issue that has been in the mainstream as of late, is freedom of speech, which is the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The controversy surrounding the first amendment comes from whether it should be instituted on college campuses or censored by professors and administrators. Ancient philosophers have written about similar issues surrounding censorship in societies and many differ in their beliefs. Plato and Thomas Hobbes would agree that creating an environment

The First Amendment, freedom of speech, has proven to have made a tremendous impact on our history and the course we have taken. Our country has been transformed throughout history to appreciate the different cultures, religions, and traditions; from a simple act as speaking up to what we think is right we have seen our nation grow and prosper. As citizens, we are entitled to express our opinions and this right must be respected. However, we have taken advantage of this amendment. Nowadays, freedom of speech has become more destructive than supportive. Freedom of speech means giving everyone a chance to speak up; this does not give us the right to harm other individuals.

Just to begin with my opinion, the Facebook postings, which threatened the defendant's spouse and others, were actual threats, not safeguarded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Therefore, conviction does not need proof that the defendant subjectively wanted the statement to be threats. Also, a brief summary of the case, Anthony Elonis' wife left him and Elonis afterwards lost his job for posting improper messages concerning his colleague on Facebook (Ferrilli et al., 2014). Afterwards, he also started posting overly violent messages about his wife, local elementary schools and also the police force, which led him to eventually being arrested and charged with conveying in interstate commerce communications with a threat to hurt the person of another (Hananel, 2014).

The United States of America is a symbolic icon for liberty and justice and an advocate for people’s rights. One of the most known things around the world is how the United States protects the freedom of speech more than any other nation. Two hundred years the Founding Father’s First Amendment that preserved the freedom of press, petition, speech, religion, and assembly has been under a shadow of uncertainty. There is questions in the political world of how far will the First Amendment protect the freedom of speech? In this era there has been a transition in society, one where there are more pressures to be inclusive in the United States to help with the betterment of all. With that, a trend was introduce into similar cases that reached the Supreme Court, one that questioned the constitutionality of limiting matters like hate, or offensive speech. The free speech clause should protect offensive speech, despite the negative connotations that are from it, because there is this concept that if one thing is prohibited what is the end to these limitations that are without basis. The case Matal v. Tam represents this idea and supports an unabridged First Amendment, except when there is imminent harm to citizens.

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.

In this paper I will describe the original intent of the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to privacy, and criminals’ rights. I will explain current views of the provisions of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to privacy, and criminals’ rights. I will assess which events and opinions have changed the intent of each of these provisions over time. I will evaluate the effects of Supreme Court decisions related to these provisions and express consideration for the future of these provisions.

Centuries ago in American society, individuals were not granted the free will to act and speak freely. First Amendment rights allowed citizens to do so. On a historical outlook, the oppressed fought for the rights of various groups in the United States. Although laws and situations evolve, groups in America continue to face inequality and issues with freedom of speech. There is room for further improvement; freedom for all citizens needs to be fulfilled. The impression of being free is what gives the United States the ideology of being a part of a democracy. Recent events have revealed issues with freedom of speech and questioning about what kinds of speech is protected. In order to close the gap in

Free speech is a fundamental piece of American society; however, it has become a very controversial idea. In recent years several “free-speech” protests have risen, many breaking out in violence. With all the arguments about free speech erupting in America it is important to keep in mind that the first amendment is very broad, and has very few and very specific limitations; thus, very seldom does an individual person or group have the right to stop another from speaking.

Ah, the freedom of speech. Outlined in our nation’s Constitution and considered one of the most fundamental of all human rights, it gives us the ability to express ourselves without government interference, restraint, or suppression (“Freedom of Speech: An Overview”). Free speech is practiced by all types of American citizens, from the teenage girl posting a picture of a Starbucks cup on Instagram to the riled adult handing out fliers for a political cause. Every form of expression, ranging from the frivolous to the meaningful and the agreeable to the controversial, is protected by this significant and irreplaceable liberty. With this in mind, freedom of speech should surely be guaranteed in all corners of our nation.

The NYU Press published this book by John Denvir in May 2010. This particular chapter speaks about the First Amendment of a person’s right to free speech. It talks about the history of the First Amendment, and the fact that before the free speech was an act all citizens had the right to practice, the US Government would often use national security as grounds to persecute certain individuals, especially in the time of the Cold War.

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.