The Influence Of Freedom Of Speech

As an American citizen and a late bloomer to the political arena in the United States, I find myself arriving in an disheartening and frightening environment. Where I have suddenly awoken in a dis-utopian world of money, power and greed, where the rich elites of the population has all the power to speak up. Where money has become more out-spoken and heard than actual dialog, while the majority of the population remains silenced through underfunded attempts to express their views. Giving money the potency of free speech enables only the people with a financial mouth to resonate loud enough to be heard. Presidents, Senators, Legislators and House of Representative members are involved in the process of making policies and laws, who are

In an ever changing society, it is common to see new policies and laws popping up left and right, but unbeknownst to many, there is an agenda being pushed by those in power to sway the American people through new practices. As a result, the freedoms granted to every American are threatened in an attempt to control the population. Control is the power to influence other people’s thinking and the power to pacify those who voice opposition. In America, the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and the press, is currently being targeted and undermined through recent laws and societal practices in an attempt to control the population. It is important for the people to recognize and stand against this, or else, we all risk losing our

As American citizens we are blessed with rights that many other countries are yet to afford; of those, one of the most influential and powerful is arguably the right to freedom of speech. Its gravity is compounded when one thinks of the many American soldiers who have sacrificed their lives fighting to protect this. The limits of freedom of speech have come into question recently with the rise of the Alternative Right, Nazis, the KKK, and White Supremacists, with some cases turning lethal as witnessed in Charlottesville, North Carolina. Though the importance of having freedom of speech is very evident, the question arises of how far do individual rights extend before infringing on the rights of others. Many argue on how political correctness does more harm than good and is an obstacle in the way of intellectual debate, though this argument has no merit. Many universities and colleges are implementing hate speech codes, which are limits on certain words from being used on campuses. Rules such as hate speech codes are a step in the right direction to counteract much of the verbal expression of racism that takes place on campus.

Australia is one of the countries with the free speech concept implicated in its constitution as because there is no such case where constitutional protection is provisioned . In the United States we can see a wider constitutional protection regarding the freedom of speech whilst in Australia it is quite different. The libel actions have got a significant role in the matters of public affairs as being the regular arsenal of political combat in Australia . As indicated by the laws in Australia the power of parliament has also got limitation regarding the free speech in some specified places which has been found out by the research made . The offensive behaviour in public is also prohibited according to the Summary Offensive Act Section 6 .The

Freedom of speech would be easy if words did not have power. Guaranteeing people, the right to say and print whatever they wanted would be easy if we could believe that words had no real effect. But unfortunately, Americans tend to believe that words do have power and that they can anger and inspire, cause people to rise up and act out in harmful ways. Americans celebrate speakers like James Otis, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr., whose words inspired people to fight for independence, advance the American experiment in republican government, and dream of a more just society. These people’s words have changed the lives and influences of millions of people today.

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

The first amendment of the United States’ Bill of Rights states “Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,”. Freedom of speech tends to be the most appreciated part of this amendment, while also causing the most anger. Most hate speech is protected under it, causing loads of controversy of the years. If the speech is not active fighting words threatening the livelihood of somebody, you’re allowed to say whatever you want. A landmark case in confirming this was the 2010 case of Snyder v. Phelps; the fight between the family of a soldier killed on duty, and America’s most hated family.

In America, it is our right to free speech. As individuals, we value this right because it allows us to say our opinions, even if a majority of people disagree or are offended. However, I believe it should be different for big, influential groups of people. Those who represent organizations and institutions should have their free speech limited because if their opinions do not represent what that institute is for, it can cause feelings of distraught and anger among the people.

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 the average everyday American thinks of free speech, they usually misinterpret it as a way of saying whatever comes to mind. 37% of Americans don’t even know that freedom of speech is mandated under their first amendment rights or what freedom of speech involves. (Shepard). This 37 % of uneducated Americans not knowing the full definition of what freedom of speech is and its limits, can lead to heated controversy on what people can say because many people have different viewpoints. Such examples of these heated debates include verbal abuse, protesting and hate speech. These are some of the most heated topics in American society today mostly because people have different opinions on what freedom of speech means. Well what does the American right of freedom of speech constitute exactly as being ok to say? Some people believe that freedom of speech is ok in all forms regardless if it leads to the psychological or physical harms of others, while others believe that there is a limit to what can be said. Some people are also in between. You’re probably asking why you should even care about this as you may not, but this is something that’s very important that all of us can relate to because as Americans, we all get the right of freedom of speech. My personal opinion is that as long as no individual or group of people are physically hurt or targeted by a 2nd party compelled off of a another person’s point of view, than that persons ideology, regardless if it is backwards or legitimate, is protected under their right to freedom of speech. That doesn’t necessarily mean what they are saying is ok, or truthful for that matter, but it is protected by their 1st amendment rights even though many of us may hate what they are saying. This is my opinion and millions of people of many other versions of what they think freedom of speech is. This is one of the biggest problems in America because many people have different versions of what they believe can be said under freedom of speech. We will first discuss why this is such a big problem and some of the repercussions, next we will talk about the cause and how it’s been the root of other issues and finally, we will discuss how we can fix this problem

Freedom of speech is a basic 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

Within today’s society, the freedom of speech has become an extremely controversial topic. There are various opinions on freedom of speech, however, philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that “[i]f all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person that he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (1859, p. 14). Mill sides with freedom of speech being vital for all of humanity. Having the ability to speak one’s thoughts and opinions is crucial not only for the individual, but for society as a whole. The right to speak one’s mind openly and freely about certain topics without the fear of high authoritative figures suppressing those opinions, while keeping in mind not to harm others is what freedom of speech is truly about. Freedom of speech is a basic human right to every individual, although the way you present and utilize your opinions on a specific topic has to be within limits; meaning if it harms individuals and/or society, the law can then intervene.

Freedom of speech is defined as “the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.”. It is a constitutional right under the first amendment. However, does freedom of speech really mean freedom of speech, or is it limited? Freedom of speech is the ability to speak without censorship or limitation. Also called freedom of expression, it refers not only to verbal speech but any act of communicating information or ideas, including publications, broadcasting, art, advertising, film, and the Internet.

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.

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.