Should The Government Take Away Freedom Of Speech

Did you know that 43% of kids have been bullied online? Many students are very negatively affected by being bullied online. Many people believe that schools should limit students under the age of eighteens online free speech, but others think that they should, not because it would be a violation of the first amendment.

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

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.

Should schools have the right to limit students' freedom of speech? This essay will be exploring the idea of limiting students' online speech outside of school, and how that affects students' school days, events, opportunities and more;

The Freedom of Protest has gotten a little blurred the last few months. The right to protest anything the government does is a special right that not a lot of people have, like in Syria. But here, in the U.S.,

Citizens of the United States shall have the right to free speech. Persons shall be permitted to express their opinions freely in any way whether that be orally, written, recorded, displayed on websites, or by using symbols, signs or images.

The expectations of the citizens in regard to the ‘social contract’ is diverging from the State’s interpretation, and I will demonstrate how this diminishes the democratic process in regard to freedom of speech, and freedom of the press in particular.

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.

The government, with the wisdom that we're pretty sure it must have, has determined that there are a number of situations when, no, it'd really rather not let everyone have free speech. But this isn't normally to limit criticism of government. It has more to do with fairly specific cases where free speech stops the government from doing its job. Someone who works for the CIA, or otherwise has access to classified information, will find that their right to free speech doesn't extend to sharing that information freely. Which not only makes sense, it also increases the potential for slapstick comedy scenarios where the wrong DVD gets returned to the video store. Another example are gag orders, where the courts can order a person not to say something

I believe that there shouldn't be any restrictions on free speech on or offline because there are already certain constraints that come with the right. Freedom of speech allows us to express our opinions and listen to others opinions even if we don't agree. The dilemma is that we choose to attack each other when others have a contrasting opinion. I believe that we need to understand that listening to each other's opinions opens our knowledge about the topic.

Free speech should not end when the nature of the words are “inciting or producing lawless action.” This would be a “harsh” censorship of the American people. People should have the right to talk about violence or illegal acts. The supreme court ruling also says that freedom of speech ends when the words are “likely to incite or produce such action.” How does the government know when someone is “likely” to commit the crime that they are talking about? That would be giving a lot of power to a government that has abused power and the trust of its people in the past. Evidence of this is when “James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence [misled] Congress about the phone-log program.” Similarly to Ann Telnaes idea that, “banning offensive

Topic: Do you believe that free speech as proscribed under the first amendment of the constitution should be limited?

Is Freedom Of Speech a true thing? You might want to think again. Over the past couple of centuries it has changed. You used to be able to say anything and everything you wanted. Now you say something and you are immediately thrown in jail. Like what happened to Bradley Manning over the past year and a half. He released documents about military killing innocent people and what does our government do? They threw him in jail. The military did not comment on the situation because they knew it was true. He wanted people knowing what they did was wrong and he got in trouble for it. I do not see that they should have thrown him in jail. What my concern is do we actually have Freedom Of Speech? Are we allowed

Throughout history, free speech has been one of the most touchiest arguments anyone has ever known. Whether people should be allowed to speak their mind to express their individuality, or to say what they believe is morally right. But should free speech be a moral right?

In today 's society we see college as a Location for students to gain education and by the students gaining the education they obtain from colleges they than can use those skills to acquire a job that benefits the society we live in into a positive way. Freedom of speech is the right to express any opinion without being restrained by anyone, expressing ourself in part of being a person in that 's what makes up who we are. We could believe in things,people or anything we have strong beliefs in. Students of any college should not be told by any any college officials what they can say and what they cannot say, they should be able to express any beliefs they feel strong about .students should be able to express what they out without being