Should Freedom Of Speech Be Limited?

Throughout history, the United States Constitution has been put to the test over the issue of free speech. 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." Even though free speech is one of the core American values proudly embedded in each citizen, some poopAmericans find themselves torn between whether or not to limit the freedom of speech on behalf of hate speech. Most law-abiding citizens disagree with hate speech, but must realize even speech that promotes hate, racism, and even crime

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible. However, in recent years, the right to free speech is one of legal and moral ambiguity-What separates offensive free speech from dangerous or threatening (and presumably illegal) hate speech? Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, every American citizen should be entitled to the right of free expression, thought, and speech. While free speech, including racial, sexist, or otherwise prejudiced remarks, must protected no matter

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, 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.

Freedom of speech is part of the first amendment which states, “You are free to say almost anything except that which is obscene, slanders another person, or has a high probability of inciting

Limits on our rights limit freedom. Colin Kaepernick, a former 49ers quarterback, took a knee during the presentation of the protested during the U.S. national anthem as a way of social protest. Kaepernick and others following his suit have silently protested racial inequality and police brutality. Protesting the national anthem is an appropriate form of free speech. Due to exercising the First Amendment, nonviolent protesting, and by being national, influential football players, refusing to stand for the national anthem is ethical.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech among other valued standards. The First Amendment states that “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 peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U. S. Constitution). What does it mean by “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech?” The framers of the Constitution held the rights to free speech in such utmost regard that they deliberately chose to make it a First Amendment right.

Freedom of speech has been part of a controversial debate for many decades. Whether or not limitations should be placed on people’s freedom to voice their opinions has become a compelling discussion. The fact is that people feel that they have the right to full freedom of speech under the first Amendment. But the dangers of speaking ones mind did not present itself when the first Amendment was first created and now more than ever many view their freedom to speak as a tool to hurt others. So there should be limits on our freedom of speech because actions may speak louder than words but words have the power to hurt more.

Pursuing this further hate speech has been a topic of discussion for those who claim any try to restrict someone’s expression of ideas amounts to the opposition meanwhile is ”constitutionally protected by the United States” (Lukianoff).

It is clear that the mains point of the picture is that the USA. government is taking away the freedom of speech to the people. The person who is taking it away is the president Donald Trump, he wants to take away freedom of speech because he doesn’t like many people from other countries that means that he is racist. I disagree with what he wants because the president should not take away the freedom of speech. I think even if Trump has the power to take away the freedom of speech he should not take it away because the people have to have the right to opine. The people that want the freedom of speech shouldn’t let Trum to take it away before he does it. It is significant to try to protest agains trump unless you are agree with

Should freedom of speech ever be regulated? This is the question that I have chosen to discuss. The simple answer is yes; up to a certain point. There are three different reasons that I would like to share with you on both why and why not freedom of speech should be limited. First is what could the world be like if there was no freedom of speech, then what the world would be like if freedom of speech was never regulated. And finally, to what extent the law can regulate freedom of speech.

Thirdly, there should be guidelines or correct or incorrect free speech regulated by Harm Principle. Free speech is a right that everyone should have, however, limitations must be present on free speech. There should be fair discussion regardless majority or minority. Mill expressed, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (8). It showed not to harm other people of the community and free speech should not discriminate people. As well as, there free speech is violated to harm another then actions should be taken place to protect or punish because free speech is a fundamental freedom. Mill explained that, “if, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them …punished… not for the extravagance” (68). This is significant because over spending is a personal opinion but if other suffer then harm is present. Harm because he is unable to pay back debt and family suffer by doing so. He should be punished for disadvantages he caused to others not because of his choice of spending. Another, Harm Principle showed that position in society can alter self-regarding behaviour. Mill noted that, “no person ought to be punished simply for being drunk; but a soldier or a policeman should be punished for being

Freedom of speech is an important inalienable right that many people and institutions try to limit in modern society. In which I think nowadays freedom of speech is being limited because of lack of people willing to listen to others, who have different political views. Where I find it disappointed that we, as Americans, are unwilling to hear each other's opinions whether you be Liberal, Independent or a conservative. Therefore, stopping the conversation before it even happens. In addition, with universities implementing new speech codes on their campuses is limiting their students freedom of speech. Therefore, I do not agree with colleges limiting freedom of speech, with them prohibiting certain kinds of speech on campus. Whoever this “hateful”

According to Susan Jacoby, noted feminist and New York Times columnist, “I am a First Amendment junkie. You can’t OD on the First Amendment, because free speech is its own best antidote” (A First Amendment Junkie,19). Free speech is best refuted by itself because if someone doesn’t like a certain opinion, then they can reciprocate their opinion. In order for free speech to be refuted, someone needs to exercise their right of free speech and refute it. Jacoby is writing in the mid-to-late 70s, when the freedom of speech was in debate. Even more so now, people are arguing and misinterpreting free speech in the First Amendment. The First Amendment specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment . . . or abridging