The Delicate Balance of Regulating Freedom of Speech

Millennials have dominated the use of technology and social media over the years to a point where it is not even debatable. According to a report on adweek, the millennial generation has used smartphones over 70% in the bathroom and over 50% at the dinner table with their respective families. However, some would argue that generational separation is still apparent in today's modern day America. Beth Mcmurtrie, a senior writer of The Chronicle, considers that the young students of today can be deemed as too sensitive and conservative concerning the arguments that are found offensive. In the article, “A Free Speech Divide’’ she argues that the students often need attention and protection is discussed in the topic of conversation. Looking

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.

Freedom of Speech means that we all have the freedom to say whatever we want and expressed our opinions freely. I think Freedom Of Speech is becoming more limited in America because in “Censored America” people will act upon if they have a different opinion or they feel offended. They will do anything such as protest or use violence if they think they have different opinion. Words can hurt some people and certain words can be offensive to others. But we should still increased limits on freedom of speech because I think we have the right to say whatever we want but it is still our responsibility choosing words carefully where no one will get hurt by the words. We should try not to abuse our right and we should be allowed to say whatever we want

The United States was built on a foundation of freedom and independence. British citizens wanted to freely practice their religion without government control, which led to the United States’ existence. Freedom of Speech, defined as “the legal right to express one's opinions freely” (Merriam-Webster), is a crucial part of western society; without it, western society would be significantly different. Freedom of Speech is important; however, its limitations have been heavily debated since its existence, especially in the court of law.

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also

Not only as Americans but also as Christians it is becoming more and more apparent that our speech is trying to be regulated. In college universities across the country those that share certain views are targeted, and sometimes assaulted in the name of “free speech”. But that is the problem in of itself; people are targeted for using their freedom of speech to express their own ideas that some deem “offensive”, and when those people are harassed and sometimes physically assaulted the perpetrators claim freedom of speech to protect them. Cancelling speakers at universities because their views may be offensive to some students are hindering those students to think for themselves and to consider opposing views. Instead, parameters are being put on the First Amendment to regulate what is considered “free speech”, and what is considered “hate speech”. But, when regulations are put on the freedom of speech, is it really freedom of speech anymore?

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.

I believe there shouldn't be greater restrictions on freedom of speech on or offline because we already have enough limitations on free speech. I can see why some people would want greater limitations on freedom of speech because some citizens don't follow through. We're not allowed to use free speech for force, fraud, or defamation. It's fair enough that we are able to express our feelings and opinions, however, we please, as long as we are not harming others to get what we want. If we add greater constraints on freedom of speech, it can produce difficulties and plenty of disputes from all races.

v“What is he doing here? Isn’t this class designated for native speaker?” a girl sitting in the back said that loudly. This is the first sentence I heard when I first walked in a senior English class, which is open for everyone including international students. To be honest, these kind of racism speech carves into my high school memory and will never be forgotten; however, any type of free speech including hate speech and discrimination are not strictly limited by the First Amendment. Recently, David Greenald, the founder of the Davis Vanguard as well as a free speech purist, claims that Milo Yiannopoulos, a radical speaker, should be allowed to lecture in UC Davis. Yes, the issue of whether free speech has threaten our society has been doing

The United States Constitution granted citizens of the United States several basic liberties. The Bill of Rights 10 which is amendments guaranteeing basic individual protection such as freedom of speech and of religion–became part of the Constitution in 1791 (history.com). While most rights are accepted and welcomed in colleges and universities, free speech comes with limitations. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states:

In modern society, the issue of free speech vs. censorship often comes up. It is a hot topic among those interested in social issues, and represents two well meaning but very different arguments. The argument for freedom of speech says that communication and connectivity promotes progress, while the argument for censorship says that silence and isolation promotes security.

Smoke fills the air outside of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran as American flags are burned

The debate of free speech absolutists vs free speech regulators inside of America’s college campuses have once more risen to become a widely discussed issue. Many are contemplating whether to enforce consequences, or to stick to the first amendment and leave them to their hurtful speech. Those proposing to place codes and regulations on free speech in college campuses believe that by banning people from using hate speech, all the bigotry and hatred will magically disappear. While I agree with the proponents of regulating free speech in that it would help to reduce hurtful speech, I cannot agree that the solution to eradicating bigotry and hate in our society is the regulation and restriction of free speech on college campuses.

“If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” implemented by youth, authorities has limited the right to free speech in schools, in order to “protect” societies generations from reality. However, the limitation of free speech is unjust as it revokes America’s constitutional rights, for with each item we restrict, a piece is worn away from America’s identity. Although it may not seem possible with due time the nation of the United States will transform into the dystopian society children read about in fictional novels. Therefore, the belief to enforce restrictions on the common masses’ voice is to oppress man’s humanity.

‘No-Platforming’ is at the center of free speech censorship. The act itself is a restrictive