Summary Of Freedom Of Expression By Kembrew Macleod

“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.

This guarantees every individual the freedom to write and read what they choose. Yet in the past twenty years, thousands of books have been challenged in almost every state. This censorship is against the American ideals of individual freedom. While most censors intend to “protect” others from things they consider objectionable (Time, p.85), they are still taking away the rights of others to choose for themselves.

In Anthony Lewis’ Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, the author explores the history of the first amendment in the constitution, and goes through multiple examples of instances in American history where our true freedom of speech was questioned.

Free speech has long been recognized as a common law right, in the political arena of Australia, free speech concept has its implication in the constitution, but in other cases, it is not provisioned to have constitutional protection. In England, article 10 states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without State interference. However, there are some limitation of the right, if deteriorated national security, public safety, cause crime or harm other's reputation. Because Australian has the subordinate relationship with England, Australia has been greatly

Another important Supreme Court case that examined the reasonable limits on freedom of expression is R v. Whatcott. The Whatcott ruling also challenged the jurisdictional issues of free speech. William Whatcott, a Christian activist who advocated strongly against homosexuality and same sex marriage. Whatcott distributed several flyers in Saskatchewan that discussed political, social and moral issues. Many of these flyers heavily denouncing homosexuality using strong offensive language denouncing homosexuality. The public distribution of these anti homosexual flyers put Whatcott under a great amount of scrutiny by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission found that Whatcott violated section 14 of the human rights code which states no one shall publish or distribute material that promotes hatred of any group of people. Whatcott’s activities were ruled as hate speech against homosexuals and was ordered to pay compensation to his complainants. After this case was appealed several times it was eventually heard by the Supreme Court. The question and arguments of the R v. Whatcott decision was whether human rights tribunals should be allowed restrict freedom of expression under Charter framework. (Schutten and Haigh:3-5) However, there was a golden opportunity that was missed to define the jurisdiction between political expression and hate speech. The Supreme Court could have looked at past precedent cases and Supreme Court doctrines, but

What does freedom of expression really mean? Why is it important to our democratic society? In the landmark case of R. v. Keegstra (1990), the issues of freedom of expression

From the opening sentence of the essay, “We are free to be you, me, stupid, and dead”, Roger Rosenblatt hones in on a very potent and controversial topic. He notes the fundamental truth that although humans will regularly shield themselves with the omnipresent first amendment, seldom do we enjoy having the privilege we so readily abuse be used against us.

Freedom of expression, set under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is one of Canada’s most valued rights in the bill of rights of the Constitution. It has paved the way for the society in which thirty-five million people reside today. With this level of influence and admiration, it is truly a fundamental right. However, many ground-breaking cases have illustrated the need to limit freedom of expression. A prime example is the landmark case that took place in 1990 surrounding high school teacher, James Keegstra. This Supreme Court case touched mainly upon two sections of the Charter, and one section of the Criminal Code of Canada. These two sections in the Charter included section 1 (reasonable limits), and

The right to freedom of speech as one of the fundamental human rights is enshrined in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is consisted of the freedom to speak, think and express oneself without censorship. Freedom of speech constitutes the essential foundations of a democratic society and the basic conditions for its progress and for the development. One of most important functions of the right to freedom of speech is that decision-making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. It enables the public to participate in making decisions based on the free flow of information and ideas. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly reflects

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.

Many issues arise amongst her editorial, but the problem of limiting freedom of expression outweighs the others. McCorkle firmly stands against limiting speech which in return limits opinions, ideas, and mere expression as a whole. She explains that when you hinder expression and speech you slowly diminish the “realistic portrait of human nature”. Also by doing this, you could potentially affect the reality of history and the crucial lessons we learn from the past. Another factor mentioned

In the book Freedom for the Thought that we Hate, author Anthony Lewis takes a simply phrased law, the First Amendment and shows how complex freedom of speech really is once put into the real world of freedom, as we know it. He shows through his rejections of absolutism, strong support towards freedom restriction, and objective analysis of Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that the United States press is unlike any other in the world.

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It reinforces all other human rights, allowing society to develop and progress. The ability to express our opinion and speak freely is essential to bring about change in society.” Freedom of Speech grants you the right and privilege to speak your mind without facing any type of consequence . I strongly believe that censorship and the lack of free speech can and will cause a negative effect on our world.

  No matter how fervently someone believes in the justice of his cause, suppression of the free exchange of ideas is failure at best or downright wrong. The power or might behind an idea does not make the idea right. Many powerful people throughout history have been wrong. Few people, if any, would judge "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to be subversive or wrong. In 1939 Ambassador Kennedy was so caught up in the fears of the times that he was willing to use the power of his money to protect the world against a film. When people are caught up in the movements of their time, all people must be extra zealous to guard and encourage freedom of expression. Otherwise, a mob mentality reigns, and people

Freedom of expression, and open access to media, are as fundamental to the survival of Progress as the sun and rain are to the survival of planet Earth. Yet censorship remains a traditional response of any group that finds itself offended at another's message or creative indulgence.