People tend to exploit their rights, just by hurting someone’s feelings or dignity as Waldron said in his book (Harm in Hate Speech, 2012). Sometimes the message that has been conveyed is not what is actually intended to be said. But what comes out of someone’s mouth couldn’t be taken back. There are times when people don’t care if they are being offensive because either they don’t know that it might hurt the feelings of others or they have full intension of using their rights in a way that would cause mental stress for others. When you talk about freedom of speech another idea that comes to mind is, liberty.
Protect Our Ethics: The Choice between Freedom and Morality The United States is guided by strict, moral laws that attempt to keep America ethical in nature; however, the laws concerning censorship are not as strict as some citizens would like them to be. Some people do not know how censorship can help society, but “it is the restriction, absolute or merely to some part of the population, by the proper political authorities, of intellectual, literary, or artistic material in any formant” (Free), which can help keep provocative images to a minimum. Censorship laws are bent which causes certain material to get past the censorship laws. The media exposes American citizens to many types of provocative messages, such as those found in music videos, pornography, radio, and even normal advertisements on television. The entertainment media is one of the biggest aspects of the world today, affecting society both positively and negatively.
The first one is connected with the respect and consideration people should live with. If the citizens of a country do not have the chance of giving voice to their discontent, they feel furstrated and inhibited. Freedom of expression is extremely important inthis case. People must have the opportunity of saying what the think in order to improve the conditions of living, without governmental censorship. Unfortunately, this freedom is sometimes exercised in a wrong way obliging the Government to use its power to censor demonstrators, because they behave violently and irrationally.
It includes all forms of information, access to all users, and censorship. Librarians face many pressures when dealing with users and providers of information. There is pressure from parents, religious groups, administrators, and government agencies to restrict access to certain materials. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose, but librarians "do not state these propositions in the comfortable belief that what people read is unimportant. We believe rather that what people read is deeply important - that ideas can be dangerous - but that the suppression of ideas is fatal to a democratic society.
In many cases, evil can be advocated in forms of speech, causing many to believe that in order to prevent wrong from prevailing, censorship must be practiced with a fervor. In his essay “Censorship Can Be Beneficial,” Thomas Stork says, “Now if we can identify certain evils, and if advocacy of those evils seems likely to encourage people to commit them, then why should we not take the next and logical step and prohibit such advocacy… Must the authorities be helpless to restrain the source of the evil?” (20) This statement is a logical one, for one of the American government’s greatest concerns is protecting its citizens from violent acts.
Charles R. Lawrence III adresses the matter in his essay “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims,” by providing the perspective of those on the reciving end. He explains that “racial slurs are particularly undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetuator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialoge, but to injure the victim” (628). This argument is justified because some people do take their freedom of speech as far as offending someone because of their race, cultural, and social beliefs. As Cinnamon Stillwell proved in her essay, “Mob Rule on College Campuses,” some students do become bullies when their beliefs are challenged. Stillwell illistrates a situation that occurred at Columbia University when conservative Jim Gilchrist was invited to speak but was unable to because rioting students did not allow him.
Censorship is “the regulation or suppression of writing or speech that is considered harmful to the common good or a threat to national security” (“Censorship” par.1). The vagueness of this definition as well as numerous other definitions pose as a serious dilemma for law making officials. This ambiguity allows for many different interpretations in which proponents use to their advantage. Both advocates and opponents of censorship believe that everyone has the right to expand his knowledge and learn about new ideas. “Not all forms of speech are entitled to equal protection under US law.” (qtd.
To me, censorship comes into being when the protest evolves past criticism and seeks to kill the very idea itself - damage the economic success of the movie, ban the book, deprive the album of distribution, pressure advertisers to withdraw and thus spur cancellation of the TV show, force the company to sell its rap music division. It's this intent to remove ideas and their expression from the public realm that separates censorship from criticism. That's why I was so uncomfortable about the effective campaign by a few people to cripple the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt in the name of feminism, and to lobby members of the Academy of Motion Picture Ar... ... middle of paper ... ...he First Amendment is our collective safety net. Writing on the Web after being in print and television, having made the transition from an information culture that isn't very open to one that is extraordinarily free, I feel a special sensitivity to the fragile nature of unfettered speech. It means letting other people's ideas reach their audience, even when they are obnoxious, offensive, or inaccurate.
Different countries have certain level of tolerance at the moment of executing this right. Sometimes freedom of speech can become more harmful than helpful. This liberty tells what happens in everyday life, makes you aware, informs you, but does damage when is not well founded, or is not objective, since it violates human rights. Those concerned with freedom of speech have always wondered about its limits. One of these limits is the incitement to violence.
There are limitations when it comes to defamation because people don’t have the right to show hatred towards others. Public figures, defamation based on truth, and when there are facts to support the defamation are all exceptions, but I believe that there should also be a limit. In this case it is libel defamation, as it’s written or typed on the internet. It should be regulated by law, as there should be certain rules that put a limit to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech on the internet can be regulated with good SEO which is, search engine optimization, and it’s a process that can control the visibility of websites, so it can be used to stop defamation by assigning these websites to lower or less used search engines.