Individuals In The Empire Of Oppression

Individual rights have been a hot topic in the American government since the first stirrings of the American Revolution. In accordance with the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson’s “The Declaration of Independence” was revolutionary in its statement that all people had “certain unalienable rights” (18), which people today sometimes to refer to as individual rights. In modern times, many television shows have made references to individual rights, such marriage equality, like in Leslie Knope’s officiation of the marriage between two male penguins on the NBC sitcom Parks and Recreation (“Pawnee Zoo”). Although it could be said that “The Declaration of Independence” is focused only on equality and independence from Great Britain and that

citizens the right to assemble, which is represented with the quote: “Congress shall make no law… the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

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.” These are the exact words used by our country’s forefathers when they made these amendments in the late 1700’s. Ever since then there have been people trying to abolish this right by censoring

After reading the transcript of the speech, “The Spirit of Liberty”, given by federal judge for more than 50 years, Learned Hand, who served most of the time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, my idea of what it means to be an American was slightly shifted. The statement made by Hand which really caught my attention was, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes.” I agree with Hand in the sense that the constitution can only serve purpose to our country if we, as Americans, learn to be truly accepting.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of “free speech zones” has made its way to colleges everywhere. A “free speech zone” is a sidewalk sized place where students are allowed to speak their minds freely on college campuses. I know what you’re thinking. This sounds ridiculous. Why are there specific places for people to speak their minds? Aren’t colleges suppose to be a place where students speak their minds and learn new things? Universities should not be able to put any restrictions on free speech.

Amendment XIV. All citizens of the united states should have equal right and protected by the law.

All citizens were equal before the law and were to have the right to participate in legislation directly or indirectly (Article 6); no one was to be arrested without a judicial order (Article 7). Freedom of religion (Article 10) and freedom of speech (Article 11) were safeguarded within the bounds of public “order” and “law.” The document reflects the interests of the elites who wrote it: property was given the status of an inviolable right, which could be taken by the state only if an indemnity were given (Article 17); offices and position were opened to all citizens (Article 6). (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, p.

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.

I’ve not had the pleasure of reading a nonfiction book as intriguing and enjoyable as David K. Shipler’s Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword in a long time. The pages brought to life stories of secrecy and conspiracy, of authority and rebellion, and of missteps by public figures readers like myself often only get an outsider’s glimpse of. After first reading the introduction, however, I wasn’t sure how I felt; I couldn’t fully grasp what Shipler was saying and was concerned that the rest of the book would elicit similar feelings. Thankfully, those fears were alleviated only pages into Part I: Books. I found Shipler’s style of writing incredibly engaging and easy to follow, and the case studies were both interesting and new to

While reading the chapter, The Law, I learned more about the amendments and what the ones mainly pertaining to criminal justice actually meant. The First, Fourth, Fifth,Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment all provide a foundation for our criminal justice system. There are also many particular protections in The Bill of Rights.

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.

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

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

Freedom of speech had a link of positive impacts to the world. One positive impact would be the citizens questioning the government about their personal interests and opinion on free speech. This means that before freedom of speech was questioned, many citizens did not have a voice. The government was not concerned with increasing individual’s voices based on personal opinions and beliefs. When citizens began to question the government, the government had not one motive behind not giving individuals the opportunity to speak freely. This arouse more questioning and thoughts amongst citizens and government officials. The United States implemented the first amendment which is applied to all state and local governments. No one is restricted or

Imagine yourself in a world where you could not say what you wanted, or express how you feel. Everyday thoughts that are said out loud like, “Man, this lesson is dumb” were no longer permitted to be anything other than thoughts. Many people in other countries have rules and regulations on what they can and cannot say. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives Americans the right to free speech (Lakoff 260). Learning to speak is something our parents praise us for when we are little. Why, after all the waiting time they endured, would parents let strangers decide what their child could or could not say. Censorship of language and speech is becoming too strict.