The Pros And Cons Of The Freedom Of Speech

According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).

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

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.

There are many elements of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to address. The area of the Freedom of Speech applies to every aspect of our daily lives. An examination of this area shows us why there are protected and unprotected areas of speech: speeches and actions that have been debated throughout our nation’s history and why they are important and have such an impact on our individual lives and social activities today.

The First Amendment, freedom of speech, has proven to have made a tremendous impact on our history and the course we have taken. Our country has been transformed throughout history to appreciate the different cultures, religions, and traditions; from a simple act as speaking up to what we think is right we have seen our nation grow and prosper. As citizens, we are entitled to express our opinions and this right must be respected. However, we have taken advantage of this amendment. Nowadays, freedom of speech has become more destructive than supportive. Freedom of speech means giving everyone a chance to speak up; this does not give us the right to harm other individuals.

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).

Freedom of expression has always been a heated and heavily debated topic throughout our society, more so in recent times due to the increasing amount of freedoms that we gain. However, it is only natural that free speech be something of extreme amounts of conflict since this right is expressed in the very first amendment of the Constitution. But, how loosely should such an important document within our history be interpreted? This has been a question for years, and it is obvious that this particular amendment presents itself through our day-to-day activities. The real issue with freedom of speech is that, even though it is presented to us, there are obviously people who would abuse it to invoke emotional distress, or even to invoke acts of

Established in the Constitution, written in 1787, the Constitution guaranteed the citizens of the United States the rights of freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly in the First Amendment etched in the Bill of Rights. Throughout history, many Americans have experienced restrictions of freedom of speech during the United States earliest years as a country. John Adams, the second president of the United States, established the Alien and Sedition Act, which impeded upon Free Speech by restricting citizens from criticizing the government and president of their actions. Therefore, through the 1st Amendment, citizens should remain protected of their liberties in every aspect until they confiscate others of their liberties, and it should protect hate speech unless an individual’s liberties are in danger or under threat. The Supreme Court should define hate speech as threats that present another individual in obvious peril.

Throughout American history, the foundation on which American democratic principles are based, has been repeatedly tested. In the 1700s, the right of free speech was challenged when President John Adams proposed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Adams attempted to stop the Democratic Republicans such as Thomas Jefferson, from criticizing government decisions. Similarly, during the Civil War President Abraham Lincoln challenged freedom of the press when he took action to restrict the printing of military news. Lincoln ordered his generals in the field to control the press and “crack down on speech critical of his administration” to limit dissent against the war effort. However, one historical era stands out as a decidedly pivotal test of

Free speech and expression are unalienable rights which cannot be taken away under any circumstances due to its origins. As an amendment in the United States Constitution, it gives the people to power to speak freely without worry of consequence or punishment from the government. This right is one of many that makes America a democratic nation, and so appealing to others who are denied these fundamental rights. However, there are instances where individuals abuse this right, by encouraging violence or hate to the point where people take action, and due to this, their right to free speech should be limited.

It is ironic he would say this, but in hindsight, perhaps Mr. Brown would consider resending his "ignorant buffoon" comment and go back to educate himself on what the right to free speech is. The right to free speech is not universal. The constitution ONLY prohibits the GOVERNMENT from infringing on a citizen's free speech. However, any private entity has no such prohibition. When you are in my house, I can restrict your right to free speech, and you can suffer the consequences of violating that (i.e., getting kicked out). When you are on the job, your employer has every right to restrict your speech while you are on the company's time and the company's dime. And you can suffer the consequences of violating that restriction as well (i.e., get demoted, fined, or fired). The NFL and each individual team has a right to restrict what players say and do while on their time, and they have always done so; and continue to do it by regulating and restricting their conduct.......at least until now.

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.

The constitution allows us enough room to do what we want to do, whenever we want to do and however we want it but must be within reason and under the confines of law. Freedom of speech unregulated can amount to uncontrollable chaos and breed anarchy within the country. There is usually a very thin line between freedom of speech and using the same to propagate hate speech, slander, malice, incitement, derogatory harangue, insults and outright propagation of lies. All of these are unethical and criminal depending on the context since they are forms of speech but can lead to lawlessness and create disorder.

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.