To What Extent Should There Be Greater Restrictions On Freedom Of Speech

Citizens of the United States of America are beyond blessed with certain rights and privileges. One of those rights and privileges we are grateful for is the very first amendment, and the first amendment is the right to freedom of speech. And the ongoing question is whether we should place limitations of the said amendment. My dad used to say “Without the freedom to offend we cannot fully and entirely have Freedom of speech.” Freedom of speech should be limited due to the array of dangerous ways it can be used.

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

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.

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.

The debate about having complete freedom of speech, or having restrictions on freedom of speech can be complicated. As an American we are allowed to express and say what we feel and believe in. People should not have any restrictions on freedom of speech, but people should respect others, and not act or say harmful things about other population or person. People do not need to get offensive with anyone it is all about how you say things that can make a difference. Racism has been around for years, working together as a society we can end it if we all put effort into it and try to understand why and what makes others different than us, we might learn something new we can create a better society and end all the hatred in our world.

Throughout the amendments being changed, and more added in, freedom of speech always stayed, and I believe that the reason for that, is because it is extremely important for a country to have freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech, if someone learned something new, or invented something new, they wouldn’t be allowed to speak about it if they were told there were rules when it came to talking. The United States would definitely not be where it is at today of we weren’t lucky enough to have the right to freedom of speech. I am glad our soldiers fight everyday for the right to freedom of speech, because also without it, our education systems would not be as strong as they are today. In classes, we have debates on many topics, that are extremely enlightening, and allow us to support our beliefs with factual evidence. If we couldn’t speak our mind, I would be nowhere near as educated on supporting my information as I am today. However, there are many countries still today that aren’t able to have the opportunities to not conform to society and speak their own mind. Some of those countries include North Korea, Burma, Turkmenistan, Libya, and Equatorial Guinea. In fact, North Korea is the most censored country in the world. They are not allowed to have any independent journalists and all radios are set to a certain government channel and they are locked there. Could you imagine living in a world where everything is done for you and you can’t speak your own mind? If it is all you have ever known, it might not be so weird, but if I were to go to North Korea now, after living in the United States, there would be so many differences. I wouldn’t want to live in a place where words are put into your mouth, and you will get in trouble if you don’t conform with everyone else, and say what you are told to say. That is why we must uphold this freedom to make sure nothing like that happens to us, and to make sure

Thirdly, there should be guidelines or correct or incorrect free speech regulated by Harm Principle. Free speech is a right that everyone should have, however, limitations must be present on free speech. There should be fair discussion regardless majority or minority. Mill expressed, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (8). It showed not to harm other people of the community and free speech should not discriminate people. As well as, there free speech is violated to harm another then actions should be taken place to protect or punish because free speech is a fundamental freedom. Mill explained that, “if, for example, a man, through intemperance or extravagance, becomes unable to pay his debts, or, having undertaken the moral responsibility of a family, becomes from the same cause incapable of supporting or educating them …punished… not for the extravagance” (68). This is significant because over spending is a personal opinion but if other suffer then harm is present. Harm because he is unable to pay back debt and family suffer by doing so. He should be punished for disadvantages he caused to others not because of his choice of spending. Another, Harm Principle showed that position in society can alter self-regarding behaviour. Mill noted that, “no person ought to be punished simply for being drunk; but a soldier or a policeman should be punished for being

I believe that there shouldn't be any restrictions on free speech on or offline because there are already certain constraints that come with the right. Freedom of speech allows us to express our opinions and listen to others opinions even if we don't agree. The dilemma is that we choose to attack each other when others have a contrasting opinion. I believe that we need to understand that listening to each other's opinions opens our knowledge about the topic.

Freedom of speech should have some limitations. The American people should have the right to say whatever they want, but to an extent. Whether it is on signs or verbally some things should not be expressed. The United States is well known for being “the home of the free,” but some people take their freedom a bit too far. People can burn flags, protest at military funerals, even use the “n” word and watching pornography in libraries.

Freedom of speech is an important inalienable right that many people and institutions try to limit in modern society. In which I think nowadays freedom of speech is being limited because of lack of people willing to listen to others, who have different political views. Where I find it disappointed that we, as Americans, are unwilling to hear each other's opinions whether you be Liberal, Independent or a conservative. Therefore, stopping the conversation before it even happens. In addition, with universities implementing new speech codes on their campuses is limiting their students freedom of speech. Therefore, I do not agree with colleges limiting freedom of speech, with them prohibiting certain kinds of speech on campus. Whoever this “hateful”

Is the Freedom of the press really “free” when it comes bearing stipulations and regulations? Should we as citizens then live as a democratic society where freedom of speech and press is completely unregulated? For those readers who say yes, would you then be willing to legalize types of speech like slander or defamation of character and reputation? This is precisely the tricky and delicate balance that democratic societies like the United States often have to weigh in which different social values, for example a right to privacy or a right to not have your reputation falsely tainted, are on one end of the scale and constitutional values such as an unabridged freedom of speech or press are on the other. It is first important to point out that “defamation” is just a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. Written defamation is called "libel," and spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" or a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong. The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you typically have to show there's been a false statement published to an audience about you, and it somehow injured your reputation. Public officials and figures have less protection under defamation laws, though, which means that in order for them to prove a defamation claim, they must also show that the speaker acted with

Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment that comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is the foundation of an American democracy and without freedom of speech Americans would not have the right to vote. Freedom of speech means that an individual can debate or have an opinion with issues going on in America. Although freedom of speech in America gives Americans the right to have their voices heard and to have an opinion in American politics, it is still very limited. There is an abundant amount of Americans that are not able to exercise their first amendment right because of protesters who rally at speeches to stop an individual from exercising their right. There are constant issues over who has the right to do what, and who has the right to say what is right. The American government clearly believes that some people should have rights, but others, such as immigrants or students on campuses do not deserve to. Two articles that were featured in USATODAY, one article that was written by Shanta Driver, “Freedom of Speech Is a Diversion: Opposing View”, is addressing the right of illegal immigrants in America. The second article, “Campus Mobs Muzzle Free Speech: Our View”, written by The Editorial Board, argues the respect of freedom of speech on college campuses. Both articles appeal to the audience’s logic or logos appeal by stating their opinions on why freedom of speech is America’s greatest threat.

The purpose of this report is to identify how “Freedom of Speech” can affect people and inform how the freedom of speech movement started. The questions that I want to answer are how people are affected by freedom of speech online, how freedom of speech affects a society and how the freedom of speech movement started. Freedom of speech has played a major role in history and has been important to the building of our society. There have been many different ways people have taken freedom of speech to the extreme and this is intended to ask ourselves the importance of these free speeches.

Freedom of speech can also come to face with things such as copyright issues that are written into the digital millennium copyright act (DMCA). Many people believe that free speech online is the only last real hope for free speech.

Are there boundaries of freedom of speech and expression? If free speech is provocative, should there be limits? Freedom of Speech means, broadly, that you are welcome to express any opinion without being punished for having done so. Freedom of the Press respects the right to publish and distribute factual information and opinion. Again, this can come in many forms; newspapers, TV, social media, etc. Freedom of Speech is about what you can say; Freedom of the Press is about to whom you can say it. In both cases, as long as people are not making up lies, it is explicit that the government may not restrict you. Freedom of speech is the freedom to listen to others also, is necessary for a democratic government. The Supreme Court of the United States has referred to Areopagitica, in interpreting the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to