The Limitation Of Free Speech

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.

Limits on our rights limit freedom. Colin Kaepernick, a former 49ers quarterback, took a knee during the presentation of the protested during the U.S. national anthem as a way of social protest. Kaepernick and others following his suit have silently protested racial inequality and police brutality. Protesting the national anthem is an appropriate form of free speech. Due to exercising the First Amendment, nonviolent protesting, and by being national, influential football players, refusing to stand for the national anthem is ethical.

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

We the People of the United States, in order to form a perfect union and establish justice, created a Constitution for the good of all in the year of 1789. Two-hundred years later these composition of laws are still relevant to our lives. In these, the First Amendment, which was established into the constitution for the purpose of being conformed and to grant the citizens a guarantee of their basic freedom of speech; however, it appears that both the government and the people of the U.S.did not get the memo. Freedom of expression has always had its opposition; conflicts appearing ubiquitously with clashing interests and morals. The kosher question is does the United States honestly have freedom of speech?

Recently, many NFL players have been protesting the national anthem in hope to bring awareness to oppression of black people. However, many people have been claiming that these acts are disrespecting the military and the country. Part of living in the U.S.A. is having the freedom to protest and not being stripped of that right because someone doesn't think it's the appropriate time.

The first Amendment of The United States Constitution gives everyone the opportunity for freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Despite, the United America living by the the value that everyone has freedom of speech and equal opportunities, the first Amendment should be limited because it can uphold national security and general hostility. As this already occurred in our nation’s past, with the Red Scare which led to Schneck vs United States in 1919, and the second Red Scare that led to the McCarthy era and Dennis vs the United States in the 1950s. Our nation already had a history of the first amendment causing scrutiny in a stressful time. History cannot repeat itself, as it is a must that freedom of speech and press must be limited , while our nation goes through a drastic time for the sake of the American people and the United States of America.

Thirdly, there should be guidelines or correct or incorrect free speech regulated by Harm Principle. Free speech is a right that everyone should have, however, limitations must be present on free speech. There should be fair discussion regardless majority or minority. Mill expressed, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (8). It showed not to harm other people of the community and free speech should not discriminate people. As well as, there free speech is violated to harm another then actions should be taken place to protect or punish because free speech is a fundamental freedom. Mill explained that, “if, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them …punished… not for the extravagance” (68). This is significant because over spending is a personal opinion but if other suffer then harm is present. Harm because he is unable to pay back debt and family suffer by doing so. He should be punished for disadvantages he caused to others not because of his choice of spending. Another, Harm Principle showed that position in society can alter self-regarding behaviour. Mill noted that, “no person ought to be punished simply for being drunk; but a soldier or a policeman should be punished for being

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

“What you are doing takes a lot of courage… There are already plenty of people fighting fire with fire, and it’s just not helping anyone or anything. So I’m just going to keep listening, with an open mind”; said Nate Boyer in a letter to Colin Kaepernick. In 2016 when Colin Kaepernick sat during the National Anthem to protest police brutality towards African Americans. In response some people were angry but Nate Boyer, a former Green Beret, wrote him a letter. In the letter he states that his initial reaction was one of anger but after looking at Kaepernick’s point of view he respects his opinion and supports his first amendment right. Kaepernick then invites Nate Boyer to join him on the sidelines for a game. Before the game the two come

I believe there shouldn't be greater restrictions on freedom of speech on or offline because we already have enough limitations on free speech. I can see why some people would want greater limitations on freedom of speech because some citizens don't follow through. We're not allowed to use free speech for force, fraud, or defamation. It's fair enough that we are able to express our feelings and opinions, however, we please, as long as we are not harming others to get what we want. If we add greater constraints on freedom of speech, it can produce difficulties and plenty of disputes from all races.

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.

Freedom of speech should have some limitations. The American people should have the right to say whatever they want, but to an extent. Whether it is on signs or verbally some things should not be expressed. The United States is well known for being “the home of the free,” but some people take their freedom a bit too far. People can burn flags, protest at military funerals, even use the “n” word and watching pornography in libraries.

The United States of America has come to be synonymous with the land of the free. This is almost entirely due to the rights granted by the first amendment to the Constitution. Most people would refine that statement further by stating that what truly makes the Unites States free, is the freedom of expression. The ability to speak and do what one pleases is a luxury that the citizens of very few countries enjoy. Americans tend to take this as mark of pride, yet another reason that America is the best; however, the ability to say anything can be extraordinarily harmful. Unfortunately, in the past few years hate speech and “incidents of racist and xenophobic harassment” have expanded (Okeowo). The problem with the unyielding support of free speech in the US is that it allows the law to fail to adequately protect those who are the target of hate speech. Not only does it harm through hate speech, but in a time full of alternative facts, not knowing if something is the truth or not can be detrimental. Because of this, there must be limitations on free speech because the right cause people harm through hate speech cannot outweigh the right to liberty that others have.

With it being such a well-known fact that freedom of speech and expression belongs to the group of human rights of every person in the world. Here lately we are starting to see the rising concerns about hate speech. Hate speech is protected by a basic human right or freedom of speech should have some limitations. The fact that every individual can express thoughts and beliefs, banning the negative comments would, in fact, deny someone’s basic rights freedom of speech. The ability that we can state our opinion and speak freely is pivotal for any change in society. Society used to evolve thanks to the individuals, brave leaders, who was not scared to express their own beliefs. Not too long-ago beliefs that were contrary to someone’s mindset would be considered hate towards culture, and tradition.

Lately, there is the growing attitude is that the freedom of speech only applies to those who you agree with. There is a, “Sure you have the freedom of speech, as long as I agree with what you say” mentality among young people. The first amendment I guess is just some silly phrase. In general, conservative speakers are the target of this mentality. While this is true as a generality, the specific instances being discussed in this paper will relate to the shutdown, or “shout-down,” of conservative speakers on college campuses by leftist students and the infamous Antifa organization who is shockingly celebrated by lots of people on the left.