The Importance Of Freedom Of Speech In The United States

Over time the Supreme Court has decided that certain aspects of freedom of speech are more important than others. For example, if someone used their First Amendment rights to lie about things they knew were false, threatened to commit a crime, insult another person, or used overly explicit content, the courts have moral grounds to prosecute those persons. It makes sense that if someone’s freedom of speech lessened another person’s right to freedom of religion or freedom of opinion by instilling fear, that is an unfair use of the First Amendment. These parameters, although not specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights are very important to protect everyone’s right to feel safe believing the things that they do.

Firstly, I would like to talk about Free Speech Amendment. The bill of Rights States that, “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the… exercise of… freedom of speech.” Even though this amendment has helped our society nowadays, I feel as if the amendment was made too strict. These amendments protect individuals from having their speech limited by government action, which is intended to stop a government from silencing speech it doesn't like. However, there are some special cases (later discussed in this letter) which make it hard for the government to do their job at times. Due to this, the amendment should have been

The dixie chicks the rise and fall they got bashed on they were getting death threats when they were only speaking their mind and thoughts about the president and that one comment sent them out the door of fame for a while. To my concern they made some remorse comments they should have never said that and i know everybody is going to come back with freedom of speech but that’s something else you should keep to yourself. I think they are in the wrong here just because if you didn’t like the president doesn’t mean you speak out on him and disrespect him that way and he’s from the state that you’re performing in and you still bash him there that is so rude and are using historical in order to be relevant and are so full of themselves so I think

There is a lot of debate on what type of free speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Free speech is a basic right of all Americans, but this right comes with restrictions. In public schools, the school administration sets strict rules and regulations that the students are required to follow in order to keep things running smoothly and not cause a disruption within the school. Based on the school’s rules set for the students, the students at Palmyra Area High School are not permitted to hang a Confederate Flag in the Atrium of the high school because it is a very controversial issue, can and will cause a disruption within the school, and the school has the right to monitor free speech during school hours.

Free speech is as synonymous with America as the bald eagle, Old Glory or a slugfest on the gridiron. However, this seemingly inborn right most Americans take for granted has fallen under attack in recent years. The attack on free speech has come directly from the left, and is focused squarely on free speech as it relates to conservative voices. The limitation on such speech seems to only apply when the ideas expressed differ from those on the left. At least this appears to be the case when it comes to the free speech standards at ESPN according to the most recent occurrence at the network.

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.

Every word or phrase has its own baggage, and Americans are free to say what they desire. They are fortunate to possess this right of free speech, but they are also accountable for their speech. It takes a lot of life experience to be able to effectively communicate what one wants to voice. Furthermore, free speech or expression is especially prevalent in the college setting along with the responsibility that comes with that right. As a result, college is time of discovering precisely where one stands, so they can wisely utilize their unique right of free speech.

The foundation of the United States of America can be boiled down to 3 historical documents. Those 3 documents are the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights serves to protect the rights of the individual. From the freedom of the press to the freedom to bear arms. One of the most debated rights or freedoms was the right to free speech. Americans have debated what exactly the right to free speech entails since the bill of rights was written in 1792 by James Madison. Strictly speaking, freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .” (U.S. Constitution). What exactly free speech protects or doesn’t protect has evolved over the course of America’s history. Free speech is one of the most important individual rights and therefore when free speech is possibly threatened or infringed upon it is a big deal especially when the person in Question who could possibly be impinged on Free Speech is the President of the United States. The situation in question surrounds the NFL players protesting the National Anthem through various actions. Many people felt that the players were disrespecting the flag, the country, and the soldiers who fight to protest the country. President Trump responded to this situation during a September 22nd rally in Alabama stating that

The First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America guarantees the right of free speech to all Americans and allows them to freely and openly express their opinions or beliefs. It allows citizens to openly exercise their chosen religions, utilize various media outlets to speak or comment, and gather in assembly to protest. However, this core belief, that is so integral to American freedom, also has many complications, most notably what do we do with people whose opinions we don’t like? This question becomes particularly difficult for public institutions and especially so for Institutions of learning. Recently the University of Tennessee allowed political commentator Ben Shapiro to speak on campus garnering a lot of support and even more protest. Furthermore, on campuses across the country other highly controversial speakers such as Janet Mock and Milo Yiannopoulos have even been protested to such a degree that they were forced to leave for their own safety or not allowed to speak at all. So, the question again is raised, should these people whose ideas many of us disagree with be allowed to voice their opinions? I believe that these individuals should be allowed to speak and that it is our ethical duty to ensure they have that right no matter how polarizing or disagreeable their opinions are.

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.

Banning the speaker would be a violation of his first amendment right of freedom of speech. The speaker should be allowed to express his beliefs even if they are extremely controversial. And the college campus is the perfect place for speech as controversial as his to take place. The school is a place where people should be able to come together to be exposed to and discuss different viewpoints and ideas, especially the controversial beliefs. This can be a good way to expose students to a different way of thinking and allow them to form their own opinions on the matter. There are several supreme court cases that support his right to speak about his beliefs at the school.

I believe in being able to speak freely and the First Amendment right of free speech. Too often, people experience criticism for having the “wrong” opinion. I find it hard to even have a decent debate anymore without becoming infuriated because of the insults being made about me due to my opinions. If we are to ever achieve progress in not only the US, but the world, we need to have the ability to talk with each other in a positive manner.

Censorship harms society. “The Coddling of the American Mind” written by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt emphasizes that over sensitivity, microaggressions and trigger warnings suppress freedom of speech. The article “The Indispensable Opposition”, written by Walter Lippmann supports that when people do not take opposing views into account it deviates from the real truth and suppresses freedom of speech. “The Talk” by Dana Canedy conveys the sad truth of the sensitivity of the microaggressions and trigger warnings involving the black culture. This has lead to the pertinent discussion she has with her black son to explain how he must behave in society in order to survive. Most readers will agree that freedom of speech should be absolute, but they might not understand the complexity of the subject, as revealed by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, Walter Lippmann, and Dana Canedy. In fact, the topic is not simply a matter of embracing others views, but a much more complex issue involving acceptance of other cultures.

The first Amendment, one of ten fundamental rights we have as American citizens. It is the right to express any opinion without censorship or restraints. It is a travesty of freedom of speech. A misnomer that falsely empowers citizens with the belief that their opinion and beliefs can be verbalized and listened to without penalty.

How can we define free speech? The understanding to free speech has changed over the years with the usage of technology. Who are the ones to decide what can or cannot be said to someone? For example, let’s look at the former LA Clippers owner, Donald Sterling and chef Paula Dean. Society has a limit to certain types of meaning for free speech, both made comments about African-Americans in their own privacy that became public news due to someone either privately recording them or reading into something that probably was taking out of context. And society took it as hateful and unethical, and the punishment for them speaking freely cost them millions behind their personal private conversation. Then we have African-American rappers using the “N” word freely all the time without any consequences. One would agree it’s okay for them because it’s coming from their own culture, but then you have others would say how? When it supposed to be a very degrading word to use.