The Pros And Cons Of Free Speech

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.

Free speech is important. It enables humans to openly express any thoughts, opinions, or ideas one may have without the risk of government oppression or censorship. Social media act as platforms that promote free speech, as social media allow any person’s thoughts, opinions, or ideas to be shared with the world at the simple click of an “enter” key. However, there do exist limitations to free speech when threats or hate speech become involved. In these instances, ramifications and legal actions can be taken as a means of combating verbal threats and hateful statements. With this in mind, the Elonis v. United States sase is of particular notoriety due to its exemplification of both the role in which social media play in free speech, as well

George Orwell once famously said ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.' This sentence sums up the very essence of free speech; it is, as Orwell believed, the mother of all civil rights. Without the unconditional freedom to offend it cannot exist. Ideas are, more often than not, dangerous things. There is little point in having freedom of speech if it only defends the most popular and innocuous of opinions. The freedom to offend can perpetrate racial, social or religious intolerance; however, conversely, it is also the only means available to fight against such bigotry. Free speech is not something to work towards when the world is ‘better'; it is, rather, the vital tool through

All you ever hear about in the news lately is people getting in trouble for speech. Many Americans embrace freedom of speech for the same reasons they embrace other aspects of individualism. Freedom of speech is the right to defiantly, robustly and irreverently speak one's mind just because it is one's mind. Freedom of speech is thus bonded in special and unique ways to the human capacity to think, imagine and create. Conscience and consciousness are the sacred precincts of mind and soul. Freedom of speech is intimately linked to freedom of thought, to that central capacity to reason and wonder, hope and believe, that largely defines our humanity (Smolla).

For centuries Universities have been a place to freely voice your opinion and debate with others. These institutions have been relatively safe harbors for debating social issues and exercising the individual's civil rights. However, current students seem to be the exact opposite, and the constitutional principle of free speech seems under siege. “Colleges and universities in the United States have retreated from strong historical support for free speech, including the dis-invitation of speakers, promulgation of speech codes that prohibit what is deemed "offensive speech," and students protesting the participation of politically unpopular speakers on campus” (Eliott)

Just to begin with my opinion, the Facebook postings, which threatened the defendant's spouse and others, were actual threats, not safeguarded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Therefore, conviction does not need proof that the defendant subjectively wanted the statement to be threats. Also, a brief summary of the case, Anthony Elonis' wife left him and Elonis afterwards lost his job for posting improper messages concerning his colleague on Facebook (Ferrilli et al., 2014). Afterwards, he also started posting overly violent messages about his wife, local elementary schools and also the police force, which led him to eventually being arrested and charged with conveying in interstate commerce communications with a threat to hurt the person of another (Hananel, 2014).

As Stated by Robert F. Kennedy, an American politician, in his Day of Affirmation Address, the first and most crucial element of our individual liberty is our freedom of speech and the right to express our ideals. It seems following the terrorist attacks from September 11th people became scared and frightened that such a thing could happen, an now people are losing

Many people have gone to court questioning exactly what freedom of speech means, and through these cases, it’s been made clear that this freedom does not exist in all situations. For example, you cannot say something that would put people in danger or create disorder. A common example of this being yelling fire in a movie theater, but it also includes things like destroying draft cards and making public private material. Another point is that, although the government might not punish you for saying certain things, other people may have the right to. For instance, if a school tells you not to say something, and you do, the school has full right to discipline or expell

“Speak boldly with intellect, Never hush your voice for someone's comfort, Speak your mind, Make people uncomfortable”(Unknown). Men and women, speaking the mind and letting others know what one thinks is one of the greatest things. There are those who stay silent because it’s scary to think of what people will say because of the statement made and or the punishment required for making that statement. There are laws in countries that state if you are to speak out against the government you will be punished. While there are people from Russia that believe it is fair to punish people for talking out and making a statement against their own federal government; there are Americans that insist that speaking out and giving their viewpoint about the

This presentation by Eric Foner is a transcript from a conference that was held in the United States in 2005. In this presentation, Foner speaks about the First Amendment of a citizens right to carry out free speech, and how freedom of expression is limited by not only the US Government, but by other individuals trying to silence the opinion of others. Foner also speaks about the fact that the US Government has used ‘national security’ as grounds to limit free speech in the past, which has many times proved to be a miscarriage of

Freedom of speech is a value that often is overlooked. The lack of speech or opinion often comes with a lack of comfort felt by one side of a situation. When thinking of the importance of speech and opinions, I realized that they are the foundation of this country. America values opinions and base their leadership off of such. The disappearance and silencing of these opinions would drastically change the nation. The novella Sleep Donation by Karen Russel parallels these issues, such as silencing and the shadowing of opinions, that are occurring in today 's world.

Ever heard some say. "I can say what I want. It's a free country." In some places that may be true, but freedom of speech may have more limits than we thought. A couple of politics. Trump, president of the united states of america is against the first admendment but I can prove it because, trump seems to have little respect for anyone’s freedom of speech other than his own. Donald Trump has not particular reverence for the the first amendment. Its almost like he doesn't understand

Throughout American history, limitations on Free Speech have become a highly controversial topic, that have resulted in numerous landmark Supreme Court cases. Freedom of Speech is a fundamental right bestowed to all Americans by the First Amendment. In 1791, after much discussion and disputes, Antifederalists were successful in adopting the first ten amendments, known as the “Bill of Rights” to the Constitution. Antifederalists eagerly fought for the Bill of Rights to be included within the Constitution because they feared the Federal Government would grow too powerful, similar to a totalitarian or dictatorship form of leadership after prior experience with the British King. Due to the Constitution is a living document, various alterations and amendments have been added, which reflect the time period and society as a whole.

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 freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.