Speech On Freedom Of Speech

Freedom of speech is defined by the first amendment as “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” (Jacobus 93). Just like the Freedom of Religion there are limitations placed on the Freedom of Speech so that other people’s rights aren’t compromised. For example, people are not allowed to present true threats, or “fighting words” to another person. This restriction was put into play in the court case of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. The Court ruled that “fighting words, by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace and may be punished consistent with the First Amendment.” (Ruane 3-4). In this case if someone was to use “fighting words” which is their perceived freedom of speech, it would not only violate the law, it could violate someone’s freedom of pursue life, liberty, and happiness. With this, we can see that freedom is not always as it

Freedom of speech gives people The right to free speech, which is one of the most precious rights an individual has as a citizen of the United States of America. This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind and give their opinions of what they think should happen. These rights have been questioned and exercised throughout history and have produced extremely positive things in a lot of cases. The questioning of these rights are

     Since this country was founded, we have had a set of unalienable rights that our constitution guarantees us to as Americans. One of the most important rights that is mentioned in our constitution is the right to free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the

This opposing argument is very much invalid. Though they have limitations, the freedom of speech and the first amendment are still very important to this country. These limits help to keep only the truth in public broadcasting and publishing. An example is if a news station does a report that is slanderous, the authorities may act accordingly to declare their lies unconstitutional. The freedom of speech is a privilege to have, and cannot be taken advantage of by telling lies. The first amendment is still very important, and the limitations it has on the freedom of speech help to keep only the truth in the public.

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).

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.

The freedom of speech has never been free to everyone. Many Americans grow up with this saying and feel it to be true. Suzanne Nossel wrote her article “How we communicate is changing. So should the way we think about free speech”, published in August of 2017 in The Washington Post, and she argues that “students who seek to shut down speech that offends - through calls to disinvite speakers, punish offensive remarks or shout down opponents - have been dismissed as coddled, unenlightened, entitled, anti-intellectual, dogmatic and infantile.” (Nossel, 2017, p. 1). Nossel builds her credibility with facts and reputable sources, citing convincing facts and statistics, and successfully employing emotional appeals.

Now take a moment to consider how many people in America would openly declare dislike for freedom of speech. Not many, if not none. Of course freedom of speech is something to be fond of since it enables us with the ability to say whatever we want and having our own opinions without worrying about it. However, everything has limits, and we haven't set limits for this idea, which leads to confusion and controversy. The idea of freedom of speech is often stretched and distorted beyond to be used as an excuse, for example in hurled racial slurs. No matter how racist or hurtful a comment, who ever declared the said

"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.” I am a strong supporter of free speech. Often times I am in complete disagreement with what is being said, but I realize others have just as much right as me to share their thoughts and opinions. If they are stifled, I will be also.

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.

Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the meaning “free”? The First Amendment allows its people to exercise any forms of speech without government interference , yet as a student on a college campus, speech codes are put in place. One might argue that speech codes are enacted to make the campus a “safer” area. However in “The Betrayal Of Liberty On America's Campuses” Alan Charles Kors, debates, “ What an astonishing expectation to give to students: the belief that, if they belong to a protected category and have correct beliefs, they have a right to four years of never being offended”. So what about those who are not in a protected category or have correct beliefs? Does their voice not matter? Sure it does, but it’s never heard because it does not coincide with college speech codes. In an online article, “Know Your Constitution (5): Free Speech and Hate Speech” the writer Snahmod expresses, “The Supreme Court’s answer to this particular question is that even hate speech contains political ideas, however horrible these ideas may be. When you regulate such speech, you are also regulating ideas”. Speech codes take away from ones own

There are several examples that show that freedom of speech is not equally free. In the Ward Churchill case, Ward was fired from the University of Colorado after writing that the U.S. foreign policy abuses were a partial cause of 9/11. He was fired for research misconduct. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni enlisted the government to put pressure on the university to fire him. This proves that the government still feels that freedom of speech should be restrained during war times, even though the law that was enacted for this was abolished. This type of suppression is not right. The opinions of people who are not hurting anyone directly should not be punished. Therefore, freedom of speech is not absolute.

Freedom of speech is limited in almost every area of a person's life. For instance, a tennis player will be fined heavily during a tennis tournament if he expresses himself with foul language on the tennis court. This obviously curtails the right of the tennis player to express himself freely, but it protects the decency of the spectators because certain forms of language are not proper for some situations. If a person goes to the movies and begins to carry on a conversation it is most probable that security will ask him to leave the theater. By restricting his freedom of speech, the movie theater has protected the right of the person who went to enjoy a movie. The American courts have stated that the freedom of speech would not protect a man from falsely yelling "fire" in a theater and so creating a clear and present danger (Stone, Seidman). Therefore, the freedom of speech cannot be abused.