The Lack of Free Speech in the Military

Today, we stand as proud Americans, and use our free speech as a weapon, the government is concerned about gay marriage, abortion, and many other issues. Another issue that is usually neglected is that many of our beloved veterans are homeless, even after all that they have done for our country. This is not what this was meant for and I believe we are abusing our right of free speech. Our veterans did not fight these wars for us to bring another war out of something won. That is what we are leading to. Another war all because we don’t know how to use our valuable prizes.

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” (Jacobus 93). Just like the Freedom of Religion there are limitations placed on the Freedom of Speech so that other people’s rights aren’t compromised. For example, people are not allowed to present true threats, or “fighting words” to another person. This restriction was put into play in the court case of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. The Court ruled that “fighting words, by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace and may be punished consistent with the First Amendment.” (Ruane 3-4). In this case if someone was to use “fighting words” which is their perceived freedom of speech, it would not only violate the law, it could violate someone’s freedom of pursue life, liberty, and happiness. With this, we can see that freedom is not always as it

America’s first president George Washington once argued at the [whenever he said this] that “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” It is an essential component to the daily life of any constitutional republic, such as that of the United States even though it is a right granted to all American citizens, in the past, freedom of speech has been abridged to accommodate political correctness, to prevent disruptive behavior that could negatively affect others, and to protect confidential military information.

Throughout history we have seen how the government can censor the media during a time of war, in despite of the first amendment. We are entitled to our voices and opinions and by censoring what the media and citizens feel, not allowing them to express their concerns or ideas or concepts is an atrocity. The government decides if we enter a war not the citizens. Are we are never allowed to speak out against a war? Does this mean we are unpatriotic or unamerican? During the Civil War, the military often kept reporters off the battlefields. Years later, the U.S. entered the First World War and took control of all radio communications and censored all photographs. Congress then passed the Espionage and

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.

Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law

such a manner to question whether our civil liberties are at stake. As a member of the Armed Forces I swore to support

The freedom of speech is something that everybody should have a right to in the United States. Not everyone around the world has this right, because some countries are corrupted, abandoned, and even nearly messed up politically. In the 1876 Constitution it talks about how free speech was specified along with the right to bear arms, and the right to petition. The first amendment gave the people power to stand up against a power hungry nation to let the nation know what the people wanted to change. Tinker vs. Des Moines was a case that involved a situation with freedom of speech. They both, along with their parents, wanted to protest a way of how they can prevent the Vietnam War by wearing arm bands to symbolize their way of protesting. This

Freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment. I support it because It is my individual right to say what I want and not go to jail like other countries, the Bill of rights has this so myself and all Americans can have the freedom to say what they feel like. For the common good people went into the war for the country even though they didn't have the rights to speak after the war and did not have the right to speak after the war “ I went. I did what was expected of me as an American. I did not to run away from my duty. I fought for what I believed in freedom. Was i wrong Memories of Vietnam : War in the First Person” Michael Murphy

I support this side of the argument because we have an army, people who go and fight for us. People who lose their lives and not being able to walk ever again because they lost a leg while fighting for you to keep your rights. I am very strong in supporting our army. There is a sign that is hanging in the gymnasium at Edison High School that says “We don't know them, but we owe them.” I couldn't agree with that more. The Veterans deserve some peace when they come home, they deserve a small amount of respect. They deserve that the protest stay peaceful, or if you protest,

In many wars our rights are restricted, But 1861 during the Civil war people would get arrested for speaking against the war. 1918 WW1, Debs arrest making a statement, President Wilson let him out. “A clear and present danger” Only with serious war violence. If your words are dangerous enough, congress can limit your right. This limits the rights of our speech tremendously, talking about war positively or negatively should not be punished in anyway.(Klinkner,53,61).

Additionally, the issue of Free Speech largely defined the Vietnam War era in the United States. The morality of the war was murky as the U.S. government wants to slow the growth of communism in the Vietnam region in Southeast Asia (Hoffer 2017). A large number of Americans objected the war. In addition, students nationwide protested the injustices they perceived the U.S. government perpetrated. Defined through various lens, the counterculture era had issues such as free speech, the sexual revolution, hippies, and protests. The Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) took place during Vietnam War. It is important to put proper historical significance of the case. The nation’s attitude towards free speech changed and the laws passed during the time reflected it. During World War II, and its immediate aftermath, the In a 6-3 Supreme Court case, W.V.A. v. Barnette (1944) decision related to

The U.S. Courts have clearly ruled on issues of first amendment rights, saying, “[t]he Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection” (Sarabyn, 2010, p. 171). Though a private university is exempt from this requirement, they should strive to promote such inquiry and evaluation that is offered by this amendment. If the ideas presented by Admiral Davey Jones are not in contradiction to the university’s stated mission, values or student handbook policies, are there grounds to deny him and the ROTC freedom of speech? In an article titled, “The Leadership Compass”, the authors note that the values represented in the university’s mission statement and ethical reflections should drive complex decision making (Wilcox & Ebbs, 1992, para. 5). Therefore, it is essential that we consider the value we place on free speech and the search for knowledge when deciding whether or not to allow the Admiral’s

The Secretary of Defense has recently put out an article for guidance to military and government officials during the time of election and change of command of the President of the United States. In summary the article states that military and government officials are restricted from taking part in partisan political activities. “Active duty personnel may not take part in partisan political activities and should avoid the inference that their political activities or views are sponsored by the DoD”. The purpose of this essay is to examine whether this doctrine is morally right or wrong. I would argue that this doctrine is not sound and that the reasons behind it are not morally or constitutionally acceptable.

Every US citizen has the right to say what he or she pleases, but that doesn’t exclude the fact that there are consequences for what one says. That is a rule that has been enforced since the constitution was created. But sometimes, expressing your thoughts and opinions outweigh the risk of the consequences that another citizen can throw at you. A belief in a change, that benefits all, outweighs what any consequence can be thrown at yourself. Throughout history, we have had historic moments of change all starting from someone expressing how they feel about a situation and/or not caring about the consequences that could happen to them. This is a right that allows us to speak freely and openly without a fear of any punishment being handed to us