Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on the first amendment to the united states
Importance of a free society
The importance of the First Amendment in the United States
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on the first amendment to the united states
From the opening sentence of the essay, “We are free to be you, me, stupid, and dead”, Roger Rosenblatt hones in on a very potent and controversial topic. He notes the fundamental truth that although humans will regularly shield themselves with the omnipresent first amendment, seldom do we enjoy having the privilege we so readily abuse be used against us. Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech. According to Roger Rosenblatt “since free is the way people's minds were made to be”, freedom of speech is important to speak one's mind in a way that expresses his/her opinion even if this opinion does not seem to convince others. In my opinion, without freedom of speech, the United States would have failed to be such a powerful country as it is today. . Although your opinions might disagree with others, you still have the right to voice them. For example, Roger Rosenblatt indicated that when a basketball player for the Denver Nuggets, was suspended from the league because of his religious conventions that stopped him from playing in the league. It was then argued that it was not the league’s rig... ... middle of paper ... ... at its core, is not a governable process. This could be argued by the simple fact that the legal system (despite being a supposedly emotionless system), is in fact, based highly on emotion. Since emotions are not governable, neither will the concept of freedom. He also notes the inconsistencies, such as an individual writing a promotional piece for Taliban, and no one speaks up, yet when neo-Nazis attempt to walk around, suddenly an uproar begins. Rosenblatt appears less concerned with the content itself, and more annoyed by the sheer lack of consistency, as well as a crippling lack of perspective on the part of those protesting. All in all, the author’s point seems to be one of fundamental futility. That no matter how much we try to fix the system, we cannot remedy people from their emotions, which will always be the most fundamental (and perhaps only) factor.
In a reality where the government strives to establish total equality, there are bound to be an immense amount of rebels and protesters who questions the newly established system. It is expected for the mass majority of individuals to be demeaning the so-called “equality” and demanding for change. However, this interpretation is far from the case in the fictional text “Harrison Bergeron”, where there appears to be daily brainwashing of the population, as well as law enforcement through putting bullets through people’s heads. The allegory attempts to depict a world where the government’s primary focus is to ensure that each and every individual is absolutely equivalent to one another. Taking place in 2081 America, there are several
Everyone has the right to free expression, and this is what Rosenblatt is trying to get across. The necessity of freedom of expression and
The case, R. v. Keegstra, constructs a framework concerning whether the freedom of expression should be upheld in a democratic society, even wh...
This source supplies my paper with more evidence of how freedom of speech is in a dangerous place. American has always stood by freedom of speech, and to see how social media platforms try to manipulate and take off as the choose to increase slight bias is unpleasant. The article establishes a worry to the fellow readers that hold freedom of speech so high and that it is at risk. The article manages to explain why freedom of speech is in danger, and why there should be no limits to free speech.
...he “oppressed” will act toward freedom and reintegration into society and will eventually succeed in gaining back their freedom, but it will not be easy. To make steps in the right direction and to determine the right choice, one must take into account the impact silence or non-silence makes on the system as a whole; the better choice does not add to the mass incarceration.
Because it is a Constitutional right, the concept of freedom of speech is hardly ever questioned. “On its most basic level [freedom of speech] means you can express an opinion without fear of censorship by the government, even if that opinion is an unpopular one” (Landmark Cases). However, the actions of Americans that are included under “free speech,” are often questioned. Many people support the theory of “free speech,” but may oppose particular practices of free speech that personally offend them. This hypocrisy is illustrated by the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was protested by many, but ultimately successfully defended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The residents of this predominantly Jewish town which contained many Holocaust survivors were offended by the presence of the Neo-Nazis. However, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, who...
The free speech clause in the Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (US Const., amend I). This clause, albeit consists of a mere ten words, holds much power and affluence in the American unique way of life. It guarantees Americans the right to speak freely without censorship by preventing the government from restricting the rights of the people to express their opinions. Consequently, this freedom can encourage citizens’ participation in politics; promote an adaptable and tolerant community; facilitate the discovery of truth; and ultimately create a stable nation. However, how much freedom should be granted to an individual? Where should the line be drawn for the coverage free speech protection? (1) What happens when the exercise of free speech puts other constitutional values in jeopardy? What values should prevail? (2) In an attempt to address these questions, many opposing interpretations have been presented. While some construe this clause in an absolute, categorical approach, others take on a more lenient, balancing stance. (1)
The United States of America is often known for having more freedom than anywhere else. As Gandhi said, “A ‘no’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better and greater than a ‘yes’ uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.” Freedom of speech is a big part of the American culture and citizens are encouraged to speak their minds and opinions openly. It is such an important aspect of each American individual that it is
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.
The Amendment I of the Bill of Rights is often called “the freedom of speech.” It provides a multitude of freedoms: of religion, of speech, of the press, to peacefully assemble, to petition the government. Religious freedom is vitally important to this day because it eliminates the problem of religious conflicts. Historically, many people died for their beliefs because their government only allowed and permitted one religion. T...
As the case in Illinois clearly demonstrates, concerns about the fundamental discrepancy between a government's authority and what that government's authority guarantees are still being resolved. Cases like Tinker still have meaning and relevance to the situations of today, but at the same time, the lesson of Slotterback and innumerable other cases is that precedent can be defied, that every new generation requires a new interpretation of the provisions and guarantees made in grand terms vague enough to allow just such reinterpretation. History shows that censorship can be unfolded into either prior restraint or public forum, the approach from liberty or the approach from authority. Judicial sympathies have swung from one to the other with some regularity. With an issue as contentious as this, we can safely expect they will continue to do so.
It helps people develop poise to express their views without being in fear according to.When a person's self-esteem is more developed they can challenge the laws or rules, and fight for the justice they believe is right. According to, " Freedom of speech acts a tool in nurturing social evolution." It helps people become the socially advance person that can be successful in society. As a society, there is a need for people that can be socially mature. Freedom of speech is a tool in making a person's life better, and should be a right that everyone is granted. Many countries ,like Germany, were recently not given the right to freedom of speech. Under Adolf Hitler's regime, German civilians were silenced. There was nobody to speak out against Hitler is Germany to stop him. Adolf Hitler is responsible for six million plus deaths. Freedom of speech is also needed to stop actions like World War II, and Hitler's regime. The German civilians having freedom of speech would definitely have changed our world
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...
Since the foundation of the United States after a harsh split from Britain, almost 200 years later, an issue that could claim the founding grounds for the country is now being challenged by educators, high-ranking officials, and other countries. Though it is being challenged, many libertarians, democrats, and free-speech thinkers hold the claim that censorship violates our so-called unalienable rights, as it has been proven throughout many court cases. Censorship in the United States is detrimental because it has drastically and negatively altered many significant events.
First of all, what does Freedom of Speech mean to people? According to some, it is the