The Importance Of Freedom Of Speech

The freedom to talk, the freedom to dance, the freedom to express one’s feelings are what’s most important. In Amendment One, of the Bill of Rights, the American right and freedom that which deserves celebration is Freedom of Speech -- giving each American citizen an equal opportunity to express his or her opinions about any topic. Our Founding Fathers insured that the new American government would not restrict their ability to express their thoughts or ability to criticize the actions of their government without censorship; because, they truly understood what life was like living under a government, where they had no voice and laws were enacted prohibiting their freedoms. Freedom of Speech however costly led to a more successful America. It allowed people to speak out against injustices. It allowed people to become more diverse by hearing other people’s opinions about different topics. People in America felt pride and value this right because, at the end of the day, they felt as if the government truly cared somewhat about their well-being and state of life. It provided the right for candidates to criticize the current government and

Free speech in my mind, should be universally protected, except when that speech turns into hate against any particular minority and incites violence that is not needed for the safety of the public at large. Freedom of speech serves to be a fundamental democratic right that affords every citizen to participate in the United States constitutional democracy. It is a vital tool because it can be used by every person, rich, poor, black or white, to voice their concerns and rejections of the federal or state government in hopes to bring about change. Change comes in many forms, from allowing women to vote, to providing African Americans the equal status to their white counterparts. In addition, the 1st amendment allows for the free exchange of

In large, freedom of speech is protected in the first amendment, and in several court cases it has been upheld that hate speech is also protected. So, a person can essentially say whatever they wish, if someone gets offended that is their problem, some argue this is one of the reasons why America is so great. Although, there are some exceptions to this amendment when public schools are involved. In this case it was a public university the students were attending, and the posters were on campus grounds, so these exceptions to the Amendment apply.

Freedom of speech is a right protected by the First Amendment. According to the administrative office of the United States Courts (n.d.), the First Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech.” Freedom of speech is arguably one of the most cherished American values in the First Amendment. As defined by an online unabridged Dictionary (n.d.), The rights covered by freedom of speech include the right to express opinions publicly without governmental interference. You are wrong when you say that we should shut down news outlets when they broadcast information that you do not like because freedom of speech applies to news outlets.

The First Amendment of the U.S. constitution states “Congress shall make no law [...] 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.” However, the right to freedom of speech has limits, including violence, inciting a riot, libel or slander and yelling fire in a theatre. At a private company, such as the NFL, there are even more limits to this freedom, depending on the organization’s terms and conditions and any contracts that must be signed by members.

When you hear someone referring to Freedom of Speech, what comes to your mind? How far should Freedom of Speech go for you or others? And when you see someone practicing Freedom of Speech, do you actually support it? In today’s society, some of us forget what Freedom of Speech actually is and how far it is actually extended.

I have waited for about 4 months for this time of year, Football season. Football is back but not without its debate over players standing for the pregame national anthem to the grievance the ethnic inequalities in America. Even though my appreciation for this country with its faults. America’s favorite past time sports football shouldn’t be a platform to promote the injustice of African Americans. I selected this topic for I believe in the first amendment, Freedom of speech. In the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. (constitutioncenter.org, 2017)

United States of America has a word named freedom, liberty and rights. All amendments are in the Bill of Rights. Only the first ten amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791. Bill of Rights gives all states for greater constitutional, individual rights. In the Bill of Rights, Amendment 1 is relevant and important to today’s society, because of the freedom of speech and the press, religion and freedom to assemble.

A controversial situation arose in mid August 2016 when Colin Kaepernick of the 49s refused to stand during the singing of the national anthem as a silent protest against police brutality and racial injustice in the US. This has prompted a national question: Is it ok to protest by kneeling during the National Anthem? Personally, I believe as a matter of freedom of speech and expression one should be able to show disapproval of governmental and societal actions in a way that is respectful, peaceful, and safe. I interviewed Geneva Sinkula, a freshman architecture major at the University of Nebraska who has been my best friend for years. Her family has several military ties and therefore they share strong opinions on this particular topic that they were willing to share.

The speech I selected is called “Why Freedom of Speech is Necessary”, and it was given by University of Toronto professor Jordan B. Peterson. Professor Peterson gave this speech on May 13th, 2017, at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario. Professor Peterson was called upon to give this speech to explain the incredible value of freedom of speech, and why it is critical to any society, and especially to the individuals within said society. The professor’s speech took place during the Annual General Meeting of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, with his event titled “Why Freedom of Speech is Not Just Another Value”. The SAFS was formed in 1992, in Canada, with the goals of “maintaining freedom in teaching, research, and scholarship”, and “maintaining standards of excellence in academic decisions about students and faculty” (safs.ca.about.html). The SAFS holds meetings yearly, to discuss popular topics in a purely informative manner, while not associating with any political ideology/ party. Jordan Peterson’s event was the Keynote Address of the one-day conference, and he was the third and final speaker of the day. Before his speech was a buffet lunch, and following his speech was an Annual Business Meeting for SAFS members only. Peterson’s speech was important as it was the longest out of the three, by a half hour. The audience of Professor Peterson’s speech consisted mainly of middle to older-aged people, ranging in diversity, but middle-aged to

There are many cases where courts side with students for expressing their freedom of speech. Two of these cases are the Tinker v. Des Moines case and the Castorina v. Madison County School Board case. Both cases involve students getting disciplined for wearing some article of clothing that the school did not approve of. A student’s clothing is a way of expression; therefore, it is protected under the first amendment. One case that has set many standards for Students rights in schools is the Tinker v. Des Moines case. In December 1965, students from Des Moines Iowa wanted to protest the war in Vietnam by wearing black armbands to school. The principal of the school heard about this plan, so a policy was adopted so any student caught wearing an armband would be asked to remove it. Failure to comply with the policy would result in suspension until the student wanted to come to school without the armband. The students then knowingly broke the rules and did not return to school until the policy restricting the armbands had expired. The suspension brought one of the students’ parents to take legal action and sue the school. The students claimed that their right to freedom of speech had been violated. After a hearing in the district court, the complaint was dismissed. The court supported the actions of the school stating that what the school did was reasonable in order to prevent a disturbance. The case eventually made its way to the supreme court with a ruling of 7-2 in favor of

The great activist Charles Bradlaugh, whom often was persecuted due to his provocative views on religion and political reform said that, “Without free speech no search for truth is possible… no discovery of truth is useful.” His sentiments over a century ago have never been so pronounced as the current higher education system that we have in the United States of America. In times of great political division and discourse, the disunity has transverse onto college campuses. With the modern introduction of free speech zones, speech policies, and sometimes negative and violent protests against individuals with conflicting views, it has become arduous for students, faculty, and speakers to demonstrate different political, economic, and social views to cultivate and challenge student understanding. It is not a crime to reject different values, to reject racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and sexism, but when protests and policies prohibit the fundamental institution that higher education provides by stimulating and rebuking ignorant beliefs and philosophies of young individuals through differing views, that is the true crime to humanity.

The first amendment gives the people the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition. It also reserves the right for the people to choose their own religion by not allowing an established religion. However, there are restrictions to these rights in the law. Such restrictions include obscenity, profanity, libel and slander, fighting words, and clear and present danger. These restrictions are in place to protect the people. One law that goes against freedom of speech is the clear and present danger doctrine. This doctrine allows the government to punish words that "produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, and unrest;" this means although the people can say speak freely they cannot say anything that will cause panic. However, there is also the void-for-overbreadth doctrine, that protects speech invalidating laws written so broadly that the fear of prosecution creates a chilling effect that discourages people from exercising that freedom. The first landmark court case that ended up limiting the first amendment is Schenck v. United States. In this landmark case, Schenck mailed out a two-page flyer telling draftees to standup against the draft encouraging insubordination in the military and charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act. The court's decision was that Congress has the power to prevent and restrict speech that prevents a clear and present danger. Thus, creating the clear and

It is a recurring motif in modern media and popular culture: an artist or politician says something disagreeable and the moment backlash strikes, they or news outlets attempt to tear apart criticizers--denouncing the unhappy citizens as non-patriots who refuse to acknowledge the first amendment. The United States of America, in the speaker’s perspective, is about freedom and getting to do what they would like to and say what they would like to without consequences. The idea of speech being free of consequences is partially true; our first amendment protects citizens from government intervention with their speech… for the most part. We may be allowed to speak our minds, but there is an ever-moving and adjusting line between what is permissible and what is not in our ever-shifting mindsets and seemingly shrinking world. With the overwhelming presence of globalization and the popularization of the internet and social media in the United States, the distinctions between what falls under free speech that is okay and free speech that demands punishment become more and more ambiguous.

Since childhood, I have been raised to believe that college is a space for freethinkers, a place where two people with different opinions can civilly debate on topics to learn more about each other's sides. Even to this day, I hold the idea that college is meant to be the hub for free speech, sadly not everyone agrees. In colleges across the nation, students are feeling frightened to share their opinions if it doesn't fit the social norm. If the United States is a country that deeply values its right to free speech, then why are students afraid to say what they think? One reason might be the threat of violence from groups like Antifa, a social anarchist group that uses mace and bike locks to assault people at protests and counter-protests for public speakers. These attacks don't just occur at random events for just any speakers, they are aimed at conservative speakers and their followers. These attacks and protests are part of a plan to silence a public speaker from spreading their message. Any protest that is set up with the goal of silencing any person is not just an attack on the speaker but is also an attack on the First Amendment. College students should not block public speakers from speaking on campuses because they are constitutionally protected to do so, it is important for students to hear different views than what they agree with, and history has shown that some of the most life-changing movements were seen as using inflammatory speech and were also blocked.