Speech On Freedom Of Speech

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.

Many people come to the United States looking for freedom and liberty and where their essential rights are protected under the Constitution. However, freedom should not be taken for granted as for every rule there may be limits. The First Amendment of the United States’ Constitution 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Corwin 48). In other words, the First Amendment granted freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and petition. The First Amendment is clear enough for anyone to comprehend and process easily; however, people sometimes misunderstand their rights by doing what their First Amendment right does not protect, especially when it comes to freedom of speech. Seven of the most important law cases in the United States’ history are what shaped the American’s society and allowed people to hopefully know and recognize their limits and restrictions when it comes to their speech whether it was a literal speech or a symbolic speech.

Citizens of the United States are privileged to the freedom of speech under the First Amendment, but the constitutional limits of the freedom of speech have been questioned on multiple occasions. Citizens of the United States have called upon the Supreme Court numerous times to interpret the meaning of the First Amendment, and the court has censored some forms of speech such as obscene speech --which has been prohibited--and indecent or pornographic speech--which has been regulated (Barrett, 1999). Public and private properties, institutions, and businesses started censoring and placing limitations on hate speech in 1980 (Roleff, p.64). Hate speech is defined as speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation (Barrett, 1999). “ In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group” (Barnes and Ephross, 1994). Several debates have lingered over if certain restrictions on hate speech violate the First Amendment (Simmons, 2012). Hate speech should be regulated and censored by the federal government; however, these regulations and policies will limit an individual 's freedom of speech.

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.

There has been a recent rise in fervor to carve out sections of the first amendment to exclude the use of hate speech on college campuses. These limitations on free speech strike at the heart of law and justice within our society. To tolerate these restrictions sets dangerous precedents and unveils dangerous consequences. Speech codes that limit speech and expression beyond the limits of the first amendment are not justified because they harm society and the intellectual integrity of a university while failing to adequately support those students victimized by hate speech.

Freedom of speech has been an argued topic ever since it was introduced to the American people as a constitutional principle. Many use this birth given right to voice their opinions peacefully, violently, or to validate their participation in something morally unjust. Throughout the course of American history, there has been numerous examples of Americans exercising their freedom of speech with an end goal to either create positive or negative outcomes. Due to the controversy this topic creates, there 's several different aspects to how this principle is perceived and expressed. One side believes that freedom of speech is necessary, that people have the right to voice their opinion; another viewpoint believes that freedom of speech is

The founders of the United States government tried to protect our liberty by assuring a free press, to gather and publish information without being under control or power of another, in the First Amendment to the Constitution. We are not very protected by this guarantee, so we concern ourselves on account of special interest groups that are fighting to change the freedom of expression, the right to freely represent individual thoughts, feeling and views, in order to protect their families as well as others. These groups, religious or otherwise, believe that publishing unorthodox material is an abuse of free expression under the First Amendment. As we know, the Supreme Court plays an important role in the subject of free speech and

The First Amendment 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 to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This freedom of speech clause as included in the First Amendment guarantees the citizens of America to express information and ideas freely. But is all form of speech free? On the most basic level, this clause allows for the expression of an opinion or idea without the fear of censorship by the government. It protects all forms of communication, with limits so you cannot always say anything you want, wherever you want, or whenever you want. Fighting words are not protected under the First Amendment, for instance, as are obscene expressions.

The riveting court case of Texas v Johnson challenges the limits of the First Amendment, particularly freedom of speech. 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Texas vs Johnson revolves around the burning of the American flag, and deciding whether that constitutes as freedom of speech, or not. This essay will cover the background of the court case, followed by an explanation of why court cases such as these are important issues to examine. Next, two sides, one against the

The first amendment is one of the most controversial in all of the constitution. This is mainly due to the fact that its limits are open to interpretation. Freedom of speech, which is given under this amendment, is one of those that can be very easily infringed upon. The amendment protects what people say yet it has its boundaries; you can’t make terrorist threats, yell fire in a crowded theater, solicit bribes, intentionally inflict emotional distress on others or be obscene in public. In a way, the idea of freedom of speech in this country has never been absolute. Yet as we progress as a nation, the question shifts from “does it exist at all?”, to “what are the extents of it and when do you cross the

The definition of freedom of speech has many elements that are involved in it because people interpret freedom of speech differently and how far a person can go with their free speech. There have been multiple situations where the public must determine if such speeches or actions are protected or not protected by the First Amendment. Flag burning is among the many situations that the public still debates whether it should be protected or should not be protected by the First Amendment. In order to understand flag burning, we need to understand the definition of Freedom of Speech.

“Nothing about us without us,” This was just one of many chants that echoed through the EMU ballroom as a group of student activist, called the UO Student Collective, stormed the stage to disrupt President Schill’s speech. This act of protest came from our rights as citizens to use our Freedom of Speech. As a result of the incident, President Schill was not able to personally address his speech about what he was intending to do with the $50 million dollar donation, which none of which was going to any of the outlets the students were bringing up in the protest. Ultimately the students were escorted off of the stage and all seemed to be well but as time went on the sanctions followed. Some students were accused of violating the “amplified noise” policy and could be struck with disciplinary consequences. This seems to be a pitiful act by president Schill in an attempt to win back control over the student body, but I have decided to side with the students. This raises one personal question at issue, whether President Schill should set a meeting or an alternative way to talk the issue out before punishing the students for protesting his speech? President Schill should set a meeting or an alternative way to talk the issue out before punishing the students for protesting his speech.

In the US Constitution, our 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.” To place it is simpler terms, any person in the United States of America has the freedom to express their opinions in any way they want, without the threat of the government oppressing them. We are the only nation in the world with this amplification in our constitution. It frames us to be a source for many to express their own opinions freely. The first amendment has been a hot topic of discussion in the United

The definition of freedom of speech is the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Some people agree with that but wouldn’t agree with all of the examples that go along with it. In 2016, a man named Colin Kaepernick decided to kneel for the national anthem, because he believes that he shouldn’t stand for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. In this past year the number has grown for people who don’t agree with this type of behavior and there has been a huge increase in players who agree with it and follow Kaepernick’s actions. The reason why people disagree with his actions is because it disrespects the flag and the people who fight for this country. Kaepernick went on to say how his actions have nothing to do with the people who fight for our country but for country and how things need to change. His action so far has caused a severe drop in the ratings and sales in the NFL but has impacted the players and the country. I believe in his cause to change the country. I also believe that players have the freedom to express themselves and shouldn’t be looked at negatively because of their actions. This is something that the president doesn’t agree with. Because of that, it has caused a huge controversy over the most dominant force on television and the country.

Speech is something that has existed since the beginning of time. However, the idea that speech is a given right is a relatively new idea and is not something all hierarchies stress, especially in impoverished countries. There have been historic events such as the Emancipation Proclamation in which Abraham Lincoln not only gave freedom to slaves but the same rights only few enjoyed, including the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is more than just a right, it a right to challenge others opinions and voice our own. The First Amendment has given us the right to speak freely. “[It] guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids the congress from promoting one religion over the other and also restrict an individual’s religious practices” by constitution project website. We Americans have the right to voice our opinion, as well as express our beliefs regardless of what they might be. When higher education censors our speech and tell us what our duty to believe is, they then hinder the learning process. In reality, the duty of a higher education should be to expand what we deem as truth but to also challenge our beliefs, so that we can grow and open our minds to beliefs that we might see as contradictory to our values and principles, thereby making us a better well rounded human being.