The Types Of Unprotected Speech

Provocative words or indecent words that are either harming or might bring about the listener to promptly hit back or break the peace are considered to be the part of fighting words and offensive speech. Utilization of such words is not considered as a "free speech" under the First Amendment. On the off chance that the listener is indicted for such offensive words assault, this may lead to mitigating situations (Dorf & Michael, n,d).

Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.

A sensitive, controversial topic today regarding slurs is the conversation of “reclaiming slurs”. This idea

Freedom of speech is a glorious thing and a privileges of living in the United States of America is being able to express one’s opinion. Segments of society are making an effort to stifle people’s opinions to do what is politically correct. Can people’s ideas of protection be too extreme? In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that there is a negative outcome when rules are given to stop people from being offended, and this statement is supported from real life examples, analogies, and reliable sources.

Nevertheless, speech or vernacular that is threatening or violent towards other citizens-or adversely and negatively affects the freedoms of others- can be restricted and enjoys no protection from the Bill of Rights. In the subsequent weeks after the Charlie Hebdo and Curtis Culwell shootings, both the FBI and Parisian police aggressively targeted, banned, and censored anti-Islamic speech or discourse in an attempt to stem future violence. While these reactions may be well-intended, it is imperative to remember that even speech that profoundly insults our personal values or is hateful to our ideals warrants the same protection as other speech solely because freedom of expression is inseparable: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are

Smith uses repetition and anaphora in order to emphasize the American government’s negative aspects. She uses many different instances of repetition, including “smear” and “Democratic Administration,” along with examples of anaphora such as “I speak” and “The right…” Smith’s use of repetition has a negative tone aimed towards her opponents. The word “smear” means to cover something in a careless or messy manner, and Smith uses it to describe the way some Americans are carelessly being called communists or fascists. By using the word "smear," Smith demonstrates that Democrats are carelessly calling out the American public on baseless information, which is morally wrong. Smith also restates the words “The right…” when describing some principles of Americanism. By repeating those two words, Smith emphasizes that Americans have basic rights that everyone is entitled to. But because of the unnecessary smearing of people by Congress members,

Now a days, you have to watch what you say, how you say it, and where you say what you think in order to a) not offend those around you and b) to avoid government (whether local, state or federal) scrutiny. It appears that now a days anything and everything that is said has some form of backlash. We are

“On Political Labels” by Christopher Borick and “Four Words That Will Decide the Election” by David Green both deal with how language is used in politics. Borick’s essay is a more historical and informative of the origins of political language and key words, while Green’s essay is a game plan for the Democrats to defeat the Republicans by using their own rhetoric against them. David Green makes great points in his essay, but because of his left wing bias and his overall view of Republicans being almost idiots discredit his essay. This is because of the multiple schools of thought that aren’t taken into account for in his essay. Borick’s historical analysis of political terms gives the reader a greater understanding on the rebuttals the Democrats and Republicans can use, but his overall naïve tone on politics today makes his essay almost utopian or unrealistic. Since both essays were written before the 2012 election, they have some outdated views because of our current changing political climate. The current political climate has made the Democratic Party is leaning more European Socialist, while the Republican Party is being dominated by any reactionary movement that is prides itself on nationalism and anti-immigration rhetoric.

In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.

In the article “Speech Codes: Alive and Well at Colleges” by Harvey A. Silverglate and Greg Lukianoff the authors talk about how speech codes are still used in universities but not called speech codes. Silverglate goes on to speak how speech is restricted by way of creating “speech zones” and policies that are “artfully written” to conceal their intentions to limit public speaking. I found myself asking why we need to defend ourselves from expressing our viewpoints even if they are constitutionally protected by the first amendment.

Threat: An action or event that might compromise security. A threat is a potential violation of security.

Our most basic right, the freedom of speech, is being threatened. Nat Hentoff’s “Speech Codes on Campus” clearly explains the situation unfolding on college campuses and elsewhere across the United States. A speech code is defined as a limitation on specific words that might be found offensive to anyone. This limitation can create some major problems elsewhere that can be overlooked. Some might even argue that speech codes offend the very people that it is trying to protect.

“This is a moral and civic duty;” “what sort of twisted mind;” “Obamacare has signed up people with dire medical conditions;” “The sum of human suffering diminished;” Are all examples of harsh diction. This tactic brings urgency to the matter, and further proves its significance.

In Brink’s discussion of, Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, he distinguishes between low value and high value speech. The former is speech that plays no essential role in the exposition of ideas and is of such slight social value as a step to the truth that any benefit is outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Examples of low value speech include threats, fighting words, incitement of illegal activity, libel, and obscenity. In contrast, high value speech is speech that contributes to public discourse. Moreover, it possesses content-based restrictions that are subject to strict scrutiny, laws that are necessary to meet a state interest.

The civil liberties that the American people have are inalienable rights. The most important of these is the freedom of speech. Yet freedom of speech is not entirely protected; using hurtful, false, or damaging speech is not allowed. But how can the American government control something as basic as speech? There are laws against libel and slander but how are they perpetrated? This essay will explain how the court cases and laws have evolved and been clarified throughout America’s history up to present day.