To What Extent Should Freedom Be Restricted

Flags burning under raining bombs, gunshots echoing through a field of raining terror, while hiding underground for the day where humanity can roam free again; situations as so aren’t exactly what people imagine when thinking about one’s future. Every death was honored by those who lived; lives lost during wars of any kind are unlike lives lost in our country today, not for the value of those once living are greater than another, but from how much those lives mean to this day. Establishment and preservation of freedom wasn’t easy and will never be easy; many people served until their last breath, for the freedoms of our lives today. That is why we must continue to grasp for freedom, and to establish and preserve our freedom most effectively we must have the heart to be free, and have united dedication to freedom itself.

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

Such as a ban ultimately puts the american values of freedom and individualism in jeopardy. Glass`s point is that if the government controls what we eat and drink then it is going to cause us very big trouble. However as the article of “food politics” states “poor health is much more than an individual's personal problems. If you are ill, your illness has consequences for others. This means

Restriction of freedom can be beneficial when others are abusing their freedom to cause physical, emotional, or psychological harm to others. For example, people have the freedom to say whatever they choose online but if someone uses that ability to bully others, then their freedom should be restricted because of the consequences of what their actions could bring. In the instance of Animal Farm, Napoleon gained freedom after the Rebellion, but later used his freedom to do what he wanted to the

There are moments when civil liberties should be curtailed in democratic countries like the US and Canada, in order to maintain national security. While this is true, there are also moments that an individual’s civil liberty should be maintained whereas it is not. Consequently, governments should make clear boundaries as to which occasions civil liberties should be restricted. For instance, both the Patriotic Act and the Anti-terrorist Act allowed rover wiretapping which are needed to deal with terrorists who have a sophisticated knowledge of how technology works.

One might ask the importance of civil liberties after so many years. The answer is that we are all touched by these liberties every day. Even though civil liberties were embedded into the Bill of Rights in the late 1800’s, we today, as Americans, still have the right to be protected against any abusive power used by the government (Bianco & Canon, 2015, p. 106). Although Americans are protected fully today, it took over a century for all civil liberties to be implemented. With several civil liberties in place, which is most important? Which liberty protects us as Americans, most significantly? I believe all of our civil liberties are equally as beneficial and lead to the safety of every citizen in the United

Topic: Do you believe that free speech as proscribed under the first amendment of the constitution should be limited?

It’s amazing to know that people can lose their freedom and their ability to be human if they don’t learn to protect certain things. An example is, people can lose happiness and fun. Montag says, “Happiness is important. Fun is everything. And yet I kept sitting there saying to myself, I’m not happy, I’m not happy” (Bradbury 82).

From the earlier times in our lives till now, we humans have been struggling hard to be free and independent of the things that limit our right to be free. And even though some people say that having security in life can regulate our lives and messy societies, I believe that too much security or limitation causes more dilemmas. Also, by being independent and free, one can learn new things rather than just by sticking to some widely held beliefs. We can see many examples related to this assumption everywhere in our lives, movies, books, and history.

The Gateway to Freedom is an enticing novel that gives further knowledge of racial discrimination and the social inequality of blacks at the time of slavery and how the Underground Railroad combatted this through the different committees and activists of the time. This essay will focus on how the Underground Railroad affected family, economy and religion- the social institutions, those who operated the Underground Railroad were diverse and have different reason for following the abolitionist movement, and not all the committees are made equally.

Our world today is filled with unnecessary oppression. Slavery is one common form of human oppression, but there are numerous other forms as well. War, death, hunger, and sadness caused the elders in the society of The Giver to force each citizen to live extremely structured, controlled lives. That structure and control effected each person’s ability to live unique, private, and free lives. The elders in The Giver wanted all the citizens in the community to be undifferentiated for their own safety, so they greatly censored all citizens. Lack of freedom to pursue individual happiness is, indeed, a form of oppression not only faced by fictional book characters, but also by twenty-first century Americans. American society is changing so rapidly that we as independent Americans must decide whether safety, or freedom, is more important.

Throughout history, many people find themselves choosing safety over freedom; perhaps the safety of a stable job, safety from physical harm, or even safety from discrimination. As H.L. Mencken, a social critic, claimed the average man wants freedom over safety, he encompassed the human psyche that favors safety over freedom in society. However, in our modern society, people opt for safety on the surface, but subconsciously wish for freedom from societal propaganda that one must live a certain way to be considered successful.

There is a small amount of disagreement over whether or not the US constitution protects freedom for the average American citizen – whilst many Americans feel that the constitution formally protects their liberties (for example: the first amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to their freedom of speech) others believe that the codified constitution is unnecessary and would point to nations like the United Kingdom (that do not have a codified constitution) that operate reasonably efficiently and have other methods of protecting the rights of the average person.

The power or right to act, speak or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. A word created by man to escape the bonds of tyranny to express the idea of what it means to persist one's own ambitions. Freedom. Freedom is not the absence of confinement but the will to achieve freedom when imprisoned. After carefully concluding the reading done over this semester one is able to clearly understand the confinement these early Americans felt and their decision to achieve a form of freedom. Freedom has always existed but it is the history of this nation that will define what actions freedom takes.

According to James Orlando in Health Freedom, the “health freedom” movement generally advocates for patients’ increased access to non-traditional health care treatment and increased access to nutritional supplements and natural foods.1 This concept sounds good for patients, as they have their own rights to pick the healthcare approaches under personal preferences. In my opinion, the increased access to non-traditional healthcare approaches should only be considered for certain non-traditional treatments that are shown to be safe and effective for certain diseases based on appropriate scientific and clinical evidences. In this way, patients will be able to make decisions on appropriate treatments and get the desired outcomes.