The Right Block Free Speech

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” (George Orwell). Whether the opinion is of extreme offense or not, censorship is not the answer nor is the limitation of the freedom of speech. Emerging the truth, can only be possible through the opposition of ideas, thus with no boundries, the full protection of freedom of speech is a necessary quality of any society.

One opponent to the clear and present danger test thought that a balancing view of free speech destroyed freedom. Instead he proposed another approach to the First Amendment, called the absolutist view of free speech in which people may never be punished for what they say but they may be punished for the place, time, or way in which they say it. For example, someone might be charged with disturbing the peace for using a loudspeaker to broadcast a speech at 4:00 in the morning, but the speaker would face no charges for the content of the speech (Cornell, 2006).

The belief that the freedom of speech laws, or the first amendment, need to be more concrete can be seen in the first political cartoon. This cartoon shows, again, two rival social groups, both are equals, however one of the social groups is using their freedom of speech in a improper way, and they are not being punished or prohibited in any way. This shows the oppression of a certain social group that is not being stopped. Much like in the editorial, which states that Yale students are being pressured into not wearing certain halloween costumes because they “offend others”, the cartoon shows the use of

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.

The United States of America is a symbolic icon for liberty and justice and an advocate for people’s rights. One of the most known things around the world is how the United States protects the freedom of speech more than any other nation. Two hundred years the Founding Father’s First Amendment that preserved the freedom of press, petition, speech, religion, and assembly has been under a shadow of uncertainty. There is questions in the political world of how far will the First Amendment protect the freedom of speech? In this era there has been a transition in society, one where there are more pressures to be inclusive in the United States to help with the betterment of all. With that, a trend was introduce into similar cases that reached the Supreme Court, one that questioned the constitutionality of limiting matters like hate, or offensive speech. The free speech clause should protect offensive speech, despite the negative connotations that are from it, because there is this concept that if one thing is prohibited what is the end to these limitations that are without basis. The case Matal v. Tam represents this idea and supports an unabridged First Amendment, except when there is imminent harm to citizens.

Free speech is a fundamental piece of American society; however, it has become a very controversial idea. In recent years several “free-speech” protests have risen, many breaking out in violence. With all the arguments about free speech erupting in America it is important to keep in mind that the first amendment is very broad, and has very few and very specific limitations; thus, very seldom does an individual person or group have the right to stop another from speaking.

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

The issue of hate speech reveals that the freedom offered by Liberalism is not absolute nor is it perfect. However, this essay still maintains that the freedoms offered by Liberalism significantly outweigh its failings, especially when compared with Fascism or Communism. First of all, this essay defines hate speech as “speech which attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes like… religion,” (Nockleby, 2000, 1277-79). The issue of hate speech presents an interesting paradox; taking action against hate speech could be construed as an attack on freedom of speech, a liberal ideal. As a result, Liberalism is often stuck at a crossroads, take action and impinge upon freedom of speech or stay passive and betray the ideals of religious pluralism

Freedom of speech is one of the foundations that our founding fathers upon to make the great country we live in. Some people think that we need more limitations on this freedom then we already have or completely remove it (“Should Freedom of Speech be Restricted on College Campuses?”), but in reality that is not the truth. The truth is that we need to protect this right because there are people who have died trying to obtain and protect this right and every other right that we have in America, and to destroy it would be a waste of their sacrifice.

When we protect hate speech and give white nationalists an equal space at the table to share their intrinsically violent beliefs instead of protecting the people who those words and symbols are meant to damage we are implicitly saying that their lives matter less than these words. We should be focused on enforcing laws that protect human life and the promise of equality, and create a space where people feel free and safe to pursue their goals without risk of injury. This is far more important than using the law to protect racists and allow them to normalize their prejudices in the public sphere. As Delgado puts it, “The establishment of a legal norm creates a public conscience and a standard for expected behavior that check overt signs of prejudice,” (149).

The Founders made the press a First Amendment priority in the United States Constitution as a “protected role” to act as a check on elected officials. The press was part of the Constitutional “checks and balances” in holding elected officials accountable and to be observant for exploitation, as the press were in essence “the eyes and ears of the people.” Freedom of the press is the irrefutable privilege to propagate opinions in print without censorship by the government. Americans enjoy freedom of the press under the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the

In the United States, freedom of speech is considered a universal right; it is the first liberty listed in the bill of rights. Our freedom of speech is not absolute, however. In some instances, such as child pornography, the government can restrict speech. The development of certain exceptions has opened a door to debate on further restriction of speech. Despite discussion of further bans of hate speech, self-censorship remains the most effective way to control speech while respecting individual liberties. On the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement, Nicholas Dirks, Chancellor of the University of California Berkeley, sent an email to members of the university community expressing his thoughts on free speech. Although he recognizes

In modern society, the issue of free speech vs. censorship often comes up. It is a hot topic among those interested in social issues, and represents two well meaning but very different arguments. The argument for freedom of speech says that communication and connectivity promotes progress, while the argument for censorship says that silence and isolation promotes security.

The ability to express oneself is a right that can easily be taken for granted. The right to free speech has become essential to modern society. As we have grown accustomed to this freedom, it has been accepted that all people have the right to free speech, which can take many forms, such as beliefs, thoughts, and actions. However, there are still areas in the world in which citizens are not afforded the same ability that we possess. They are not able to argue what they believe in, knowing they will be silenced for speaking their mind. As a result, it is necessary to argue for free speech on behalf of those without a voice. In this essay, I will argue that there should be a right to free speech given to all humans.

“If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” implemented by youth, authorities has limited the right to free speech in schools, in order to “protect” societies generations from reality. However, the limitation of free speech is unjust as it revokes America’s constitutional rights, for with each item we restrict, a piece is worn away from America’s identity. Although it may not seem possible with due time the nation of the United States will transform into the dystopian society children read about in fictional novels. Therefore, the belief to enforce restrictions on the common masses’ voice is to oppress man’s humanity.