Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of freedom of speech
Freedom of speech significance
The importance of freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The importance of freedom of speech
Freedom of speech might be the most useful and righteous freedom a citizen could be granted with. As technology improves and society becomes more and more modernized, people get more comfortable with the social media and tend to express themselves more on those tools.As one knows, there are specific ways to express opinion or address to people and social media require specific manners and would not advise publicly intimidating another no matter what the situation is or was. That is the case for Anthony Elonis whose case will be studied and elaborated in this assignment. Anger and grudges can push more than one to do or say what we can call disasters, that is the case of Anthony Elonis. In fact, according to the Cornell Law School website, …show more content…
Going to social media and repeating such horrific and scary lyrics such as “Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class” (Liptak, NY Times, 2015) or ““Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her throat” (Liptak, 2015). This type of speech could, I believe, enough evidence to prove that Mr. Elonis could harm any human being. The idea of just rewriting those lyrics could make one think that Mr. Elonis find interest in the lyrics instead of the music. I also think that it is better to be careful and find a way to take this type of person away from the population to avoid any worst-case scenarios. It starts with expressing anger through social media, what will it be next? Probably, the person will be so tempted in putting in action those lyrics that he would not hesitate a minute to harm one or several individuals which could be prevented if he is rightly and fairly punish for whatever provocative and scary behaviors he has. To conclude, the Supreme Court can take decisions that might be disapproved by the majority but would still play a major role in cases such as Elonis v. United States case in which a man was sued for being provocative and threatening. As elaborated, the supreme court decided that prosecutors did not bring enough evidence to prove that Anthony Elonis was threatening to specific people although he was sentenced to fourth four months for conduction aggressive behaviors towards people through social
United States Supreme Court cases are argued and decided on Constitutional grounds. All arguments and decisions are based on interpretations of the original Constitution and, more often, on Constitutional amendments.
Entrenched within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lies the fundamental rights that Canadian citizens share. The primary freedoms recognized within Section 2 of the Charter, such as the freedom of speech and expression, are necessary for a free and democratic society. Yet, a crucial conflict of rights exists within the system when the freedom of expression is used to perpetuate willful hatred against a certain individual or group. Controversy arises from this conflict first and foremost because the freedom of expression is meant to secure each person the right to express ideas and opinions without governmental interference, irrespective of what that opinion may be. In this paper, I will discuss the conflicting views of restricting the freedom of expression when it is used to promote hatred. I refer to the insights offered by Joel Feinberg and Joseph Raz to advance the view that the “right” to freedom of expression is not final and absolute, as expressions of hated do in fact cause real harm to people, and there rights too must be taken into consideration. Fundamental rights should be viewed as a privilege, which includes a responsibility to respect and value the rights of others to provide for a truly liberal democracy. I will refer to the landmark judicial decision in the Canadian Supreme Court case of R. v. Keegstra to argue that the rights of individuals and groups to be afforded the right to respect and dignity outweigh any claim to freedom of expression.
Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for simply speaking one’s mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one’s mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one’s own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower’s belief will be stronger. The words sound so simple, but without them the world would be a very different place.
Freedom of speech was a big topic spoken about in the 1950’s and even today. Schools in the 1950’s had to recite a specific prayer every morning in school not like today. Students had to recite the “twenty two word regents prayer”. The Engel Vs Vitale case has to do with separation of church and state, meaning that there should be a separation between peoples views on religious freedom and the government. In the first amendment, Thomas Jefferson introduced this law and rule during the colonies but then this later evolved into the United States, where into the 1950’s became a huge debate on who was right and who was wrong. The Supreme Court case Engel v. Vitale expanded the rights of Americans because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Stephen Engel and the families of the students against prayer in schooling; because of this decision, students should be able to absent themselves from prayer in school.
Nevertheless, Internet censorship makes it more difficult for extremists to connect with each other. Government imposed online censorship allows posts to be analyzed by officials to help them track down and arrest those who are posting the messages, effectively reducing crime. Despite this extreme case and many other minor ones involving racist email harassment, racist blog posts, and racist social media accounts on Twitter, developed countries such as the United States have no laws ruling against the mistreatment of others online (Qazi). Although free speech is fundamental to society, it crosses a line once people are physically
Traditional thinking about the recognition by civil authorities of the right to unrestricted freedom of speech can be seen as a hideous mistake in the domestic or even on the international level, favoring the spread of evil in society, even among liberals. “Regarding calls to violence or hatred, or threats, the same way, it's not really the opinions exposed that are the issue, but the speech's consequences, in that case hate, violence and fear.” According to the most wide spread
Humans are born free, and they are unique by having minds. Accordingly, every day, they gain new knowledge, and day by day they become smarter. They become more thinker, become more understanding things. Therefore, they have the right to speech without any restrictions. “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear,” Orwell. There are various methods that the humans used in the past to express their thoughts. They used primitive lines, and inscriptions on the walls of caves, drawing, animals, tools and sophistication, to syllables and letters in the formation of languages. Freedom of speech means the way that people express their ideas, thoughts by writing or speaking, or even
Free speech has evolved immensely throughout the decades. Before its establishment, free speech was a right that was mightily fought for. As the past years consisted of male dominance, it was mostly males who had the privilege to be vocal about their opinions. With the dedication and perseverance brought forth by women and the minority races to be given the equal opportunity to free speech, it has become a universal right for all races and gender. Free speech is a right that is so aggressively exercised nowadays, that it has caused a negative shift in momentum of the privileges given under free speech, which results in Jonathan Turley stating that “free speech is dying in the Western World” in his article. Turley discusses how the Western population is progressively provoking the government to place limits in free speech due to abusing the right by spreading words of hate and slander. As a human being growing up in a generation where people are more expressive, I agree with Jonathan Turley’s perspective of free speech dying in the Western world due to free speech being abused and taken for granted.
Tufekci’s intent with the article is to inform people about the importance of being aware what you post and see on the internet because everyone has access to post on the internet. The author supports their claim about free speech with examples and situations. Tufekci doesn’t talk about himself or talks about his situations he has gone through with social media and freedom of speech, but gives examples of big issues that have happened, which makes this article more reliable. This article is very effective because it makes a person realize of how they need to be more aware of the stuff on the internet and to censor what you say
...ts, social media network have the influential power to be negative; it has distorted society’s perception of freedom of speech by awarding users the privilege of stating their views and opinions onto the internet regardless of how biased and dishonorable they could be. This lack of understanding can lead to the deformation of the character of others while taking harmless acts out of context and depriving its users the true meaning of privacy. The disadvantages and dangers of social media networks outweigh the benefits as this generation of users and providers negate the morality presented away from the internet.
Although we are guaranteed freedom of speech in our fundamental freedoms under section two of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and freedom of expression under section two (b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Anti Terrorism Act infringes this right. Much of “political activity, including expression and activism that challenges government policy is and always has been a target of high policing in Canada.” (Larsen, M., 2015) Perhaps the government feels threatened by new ideas and does not want to be challenged. This forces the government to target groups of people who question the current system and spread new ideas freely.
The aim of this essay is to critically examine the limits of freedom of expression. The limits or constraints of free expression, in most cases, refer to the abuse of free speech, which may cause harm or offence. The essay focuses on defining what types of expression, or more specifically, speech is regarded as the limits of freedom of expression.
The battle between freedom of speech and right to human dignity is a very sensitive topic because there doesn’t seem to be a correct answer. Both rights are very important but there is an extremely fine line between them and the issue comes in when that line is crossed and freedom of speech turns to hate speech and someone’s right to human dignity is affected. This has happened over and over throughout history but nothing has been done to prevent it.
"Defending freedom of expression is not an easy task but it is a vital one. If we want to live in a world where everyone is free to speak, write, publish or perform without fear of persecution then we need to champion those rights every day. (Social Media And It’s War on Censorship; 2012).
Freedom of Speech is among the most basic natural rights of an individual. It is through Speech that an individual is able to convey his emotions, his needs and his wants. The right to Free speech is one of the most basic essentials required to constitute a healthy Democracy. Recognizing the importance of this right, the framers of the Constitution of India have declared this right as a Fundamental Right under Part III. The Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a) guaranteed the Freedom of Speech and Expression to all its citizens. The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression entitles every citizen to have an opinion and express it without the fear of repression by the Government. However, this right to Free Speech under Article 19(1)(a)