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

Should freedom of speech ever be regulated? This is the question that I have chosen to discuss. The simple answer is yes; up to a certain point. There are three different reasons that I would like to share with you on both why and why not freedom of speech should be limited. First is what could the world be like if there was no freedom of speech, then what the world would be like if freedom of speech was never regulated. And finally, to what extent the law can regulate freedom of speech.

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.

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

First Amendment protection of free speech has long been recognized to be essential to democratic governance, in part because social progress would stagnate without the free exchange of ideas between citizens. However, there are practical limits to what constitutes protected free speech and these limits have been codified into law by Congress and enforced by the federal courts. This essay will argue that the First Amendment is important to protecting the democratic process, but also that the limits placed on those protections are just as important.

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

The following report was requested on behalf of the Communications department situated within and will be conducted by . The report shall concentrate on and investigate what problems would arise if freedom of speech was limited. It will be submitted by 18/10/2012.

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.

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

1William Jefferson Mr. ArmstrongEnglish Comp 223 September 2017Speak No EvilFreedom to the people has been Americas greatest accomplishment, the border placed between the lines of freedom are not clarified. Freedom of speech is the right for the American people to express their opinion without any intervention from the government. Freedom of speech is not a privilege, it is our general right for all people regardless of their religion, nationality, or race. The restrictions for free speech is a current event that keeps the American people questioning why is it even necessary.In addition, this argument is seen from two different viewpoints. First, who agree with the fact that our freedom of speech should have restrictions to keep others from expressing their opinion to avoid an argument and criticism. On social media, people around the world have used social media to spread hateful slurs or clichés to express their opinion. Whether its racist,

There is one rule to remember about freedom of speech. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should, and just because you have the right doesn't mean it is right. I believe that the shooting that took place in France on January 7th this current year was unacceptable just because of the misunderstanding of freedom of speech. Charlie Hebdo has been known as a satirical cartoon company, therefore his job was to create irony whether it was based on a political, world, etc. issue. I understand that there are some limits and boundaries that fall under freedom of speech, but this was uncalled for. Muslims are always “the victims” which is not true. The same concept applies to white and black races. I know this does not apply to freedom

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.

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 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”

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.