The Right To Free Speech In The United States

I am writing about the first amendment which gives people the freedom of speech and it gives people freedom of practicing any religion they want. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, of the press”. To some people the first Amendment is one of the most important Amendments because it gives people the right to say things they want to say, and it gives people the right to practice any religion they want. The reason i chose this Amendment is because I agree with it. I agree with it because we are all different people, and we all practice different religions and so it is only fair that we can practice whatever religion we want. In this

I believe free speech in America is slowing depleting even though the first amendment of

Words are significant; they enable us to be expressive and create individuality amongst ourselves. According to Literacy, “The right to speak without censorship or restraint by the government… is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.” (Literacy, 2005) This definition describes the most important freedom in my eyes. Without freedom of speech, I am unable to be the individual that I strive to be, which is to stick out and be unique, which is why I treasure freedom of speech the most. I am going to take advantage of my freedom of speech and use it to cultivate and progress my business goals in life to make me successful as a woman in the business world.

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?

Even though the United States has the first amendment, the right of freedom of speech, there is a limit to that right in which the Government then can step in. The Government has to have a motive to need to step in and block or not share certain information. One extent is if the information contains context that puts the Nation's National Security in jeopardy. The Government has not been telling us more about the war that we have been in, and has also given us false information to keep us thinking that we know what is happening in places like Iraq.

As people of the United States, since we were first formed, we have stood up and put our hands over our hearts for those who have lost their lives for our country, but as time has passed, some of us have stopped standing and or putting our hands over our hearts and holding up fists instead. Is this such a bad thing to do? We as people are required to do the same thing and live the American dream. Every. Single. Day. Ever since preschool or kindergarten, we are supposed to stand up, say the pledge and do it with our hand over our heart. There have been some issues with students sitting down or holding up a fist at the side of them, this is seen as a problem, but as always, there are two sides to everything.

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.

As Americans we are all very lucky to have the right to freedom of speech. It is a powerful tool that helps our society develop and evolves into what it is today. It’s a way for us to share information and ideas, express our mind and even communicate with the government. Freedom of speech is something so important that we practice everyday. However freedom of speech is something that is also very easily abused. We tend to just speak our minds all the time when sometimes we are not even sure what we are talking about. We think that we can say whatever we would like to and its okay because we have the right to free speech right? That is where we are wrong. Free speech isn’t always free, and is actually restricted in many areas.

Freedom of speech is an essential right and freedom guaranteed to the citizens of the United States by the first amendment of the United States Constitution. The right to exercise this freedom, and to what extent, is a debate that has generated considerable discussion between governments, the press, and many international organizations such as WikiLeaks worldwide. In this current technological age of digital information and global social media, there is a growing need to maintain access to sensitive data and to control the release of classified information in relation to National Security, political and cultural affairs between the United States, NATO and NATO allies, and the protection of United States military personnel overseas.

As citizens of the United States, we have the right to freedom of speech, which is one of the most valuable rights a person has in the United States. This right allows people to speak their minds against unjust policies, and live in the country with an open mind without the fear of the government or being prosecuted. These rights have been exercised throughout history, and have made a positive impact in our country. However not every country is allowed to have free speech, which makes this a luxury for our citizens. Recently the questioning of whether there should be limits to the freedom of speech has risen, and many want restrictions against biased and racist remarks. I believe we should have the freedom of speech because it allows us to express our opinions on certain topics that we may not agree on.

people are usually the ones that are low-key with their agendas and less likely to be

The founding fathers proposed a constitution for the foundation of The United States of America in 1787; however, it included a minute amount of individual rights to the people. This caused a strong divide between two parties, known as the federalists and anti-federalists, the anti-federalists insisted that a bill of rights be added to guarantee basic rights for the citizens of the new country. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution on December 15, 1971 and is composed of ten amendments. One of the most significant fundamental rights can be found in the first amendment of the Constitution, the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech promises that the people of The United States can express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. However, when people question the validity of others actions, they often challenge the first amendment. These challenges to the first amendment are often times reviewed in the judicial system and over time aid in the development of the limitations of free speech for the entire country (Webster). Although the boundaries of the freedom of speech may alter, The Bill of Rights protects the existence of our essential freedom.

America is a nation that takes pride in its ability to protect the fundamental rights of their citizens such as those mentioned in the 1st amendment. Unfortunately, that was not always the case. During the Lochner era, the right to a freedom of contract was considered a fundamental right. While rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and voting, were considered non-fundamental. It wasn’t until the New Deal era that the court changed the standard to be that rights such as freedom of religion, speech, and voting, were fundamental rights. It is the New Deal standard that is the foundation for our freedom of speech right today in America (GGW, 2017). In other places, the standards are not the same, such as Germany. Both countries grant the right of freedom of speech, but speech is regulated and justified differently. In this paper, the focus will be on how the ruling and justification in the German case “Auschwitz lie” differs and compares to American constitutional law regarding freedom of speech.

The national anthem of the United States, a symbol of our nation’s patriotism, roots, and ideals, has recently been in top headlines. Players of the National Football League (NFL) have recently used the singing of the national anthem prior to football games to protest their perceived failures of the United States Government. This controversy started in 2016, when San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick kneeled during the singing of the national anthem, claiming it was a protest against the racial oppression and inequality that has occurred for many African Americans in the country. On one hand, Kaepernick was celebrated for his bravery and willingness to act as a leader for the Black Lives Matter movement, an activist movement motivated against police brutality against African Americans. His silent protest is supported by those who believe he simply practiced his freedom of speech. On the other hand, he was criticized by others who believed his actions acted as a protest against the flag and its deeper meaning. Those who believe this point of view think that his anti-American movement highlighted his privileges of being a spoiled NFL player, that is, his salary, benefits, and media attention. Now, during the 2017 NFL season, all 32 teams and many players have shown acts of protesting the national anthem for various reasons, whether kneeling on the field, locking arms, and even staying in the locker room, as the Pittsburgh Steelers demonstrated during the season.

The debate of Citizen’s United v FEC (2010) stirs a discussion about how the protection of speech found in the First Amendment applies to campaign spending. Justice Kennedy and Justice Stevens provide opposing viewpoints and dissents on this case. They have different arguments as for whether limitations on corporate funding of political broadcasts in candidate elections is or is not a violation of the First Amendment.