The concept of free speech is heavily debated in the media. It is human nature to laud our superiority over others, and with free speech, the results are potentially less educated or qualified people putting down other and forcing their opinion on them. Free speech is vital for the health of our society but it most definitely needs limits too. In a perfect world freedom of speech would be allowed up until the point when you are purposely hurting and offending people. Unfortunately, it is quite impractical to legislate for all possibilities. Inciting violence, racial hatred, violating individual’s rights directly and infringement of the laws such Blasphemy law, are examples of the limits that we should adhere to but not all can be covered under legislation without curtailing free speech. The phrase was not coined to mean that speech should never be limited because there are cases in which it is crucial, in which boundaries should be respected. Society did not intend freedom of speech to be unfettered from responsibility of our words, deeds and actions. We should be cautious of unlimited speech. We must not fight …show more content…
The entitlement to freedom of speech, often lacks consideration for the potential consequences, especially when used to purposely antagonise people. When people choose to ignore the impact that comes with purposely hurtful accusations such as sectarianism, bigotry, discrimination and so on, it tarnishes the premise of free speech for everyone else. An example of this can be seen in adolescents, in cases of bullying. Young teens tend to have a rebellious nature and this can lead to them bullying and causing harm to other teens. In many tragic cases, this has led to teens committing suicide. When individuals haven’t considered the consequences of their utterances, don’t understand or accept their responsibilities in relation to free speech, tragedies will continue to
Freedom of speech is the right of civilians to openly express their opinions without constant interference by the government. For the last few years, the limitations and regulations on freedom of speech have constantly increased. This right is limited by use of expression to provoke violence or illegal activities, libel and slander, obscene material, and proper setting. These limitations may appear to be justified, however who decides what is obscene and inappropriate or when it is the wrong time or place? To have so many limits and regulations on freedom of speech is somewhat unnecessary. It is understood that some things are not meant to be said in public due to terrorist attacks and other violent acts against our government, but everything should not be seen as a threat. Some people prefer to express themselves angrily or profanely, and as long as it causes no har...
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.
Most people opposing restrictions on freedom of speech believe it will open doors that may threaten expression and lead to more extreme forms of censorship. What much of the opposition fails to realize is that our government has “drawn lines between protected and unprotected freedom of speech before without dire results” (Lawrence 64). When the abuse of one right threatens the preservation of another our government must pick their poison and decide which side calls for protection in each situation. This can be seen by ...
The Free Speech Movement protested the ban of on campus political activities and speeches. Thousands of students became involved in this protest and together they displayed how much power there was in student activism. In the fall of 1964, the Regents of the university enforced a new ban that blocked students from holding political activities at Sproul Plaza on Bancroft and Telegraph. This was unsettling to them because the Bancroft Strip was a key location that students occupied when trying to reach out, raise funds and speak up for what they believed in. Previous policies suggested that student life outside of the university wouldn't be tampered or interfered with, so this was an outrage to the students of UC Berkeley. When the regents took time to revise and tweak the ban, students were still unhappy with the decision, so a sit in at Sproul Hall was organized and it lasted for nearly 10 hours.
The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, which gradually merges into the modern perspective of the public throughout the history and present. The restriction over the cable TV and broadcast media subjected by the Federal Communications Commission violates the freedom of speech, irritating the dissatisfied public by controlling over what can be said on the air. Should the FCC interfere with the free speech of media? The discretion of content being presented to the public should not be completely determined by the FCC, but the public in its entirety which enforces a self-regulation with freedom and justice, upholding and emphasizing the freedom of speech by abolishing the hindrance the FCC brought.
In the article “The Threat to Free Speech at Universities”, the author Greg Lukianoff expresses concern over methods which universities are employing to protect free speech, and how many people are abusing those methods. He especially makes emphasis on how many people are simply declaring speech they don’t like as harassment, and making it harder to draw the line between what truly is harmful speech and what is not. I disagree with the author because while he makes a valid point, the perception of what is harmful speech varies from person to person. While one person might not take offense to a statement, there may be a dozen others who do. This illogical ideology has been used to harm people for centuries ; when offense is taken to a statement,
This essay considers the extent to which the U.S. should be tolerant of what can be considered damaging speech. For example, I think people should be able to have unlimited opinions with no judgments. I wonder if people are going to stop judging others by their personal experience.
As a conclusion, people always wanted their voice to be heard but the situation around them didn’t let them speak their minds. In the past people have never questioned whether or not this rights should exist; now, in this era, the right to free speech is questioned more and more, and whether there should be limits or not. But placing limitations on the Freedom of Speech only attenuates society. Obscenity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Is it really unjust to eliminate certain words or phrases from one’s vocabulary for the sake of public indecency??? The freedom to express ourselves through spoken language is not a gift from the government, but a right to all of human race. But if the salvation of the humanity rests on the right to freely insult/blaspheme, then I can clearly see how hapless and pitiable we are to become!
The freedom of speech is one of the most essential human rights since its existence, 67 years ago, to this day. Free speech allows individuals the right to express their beliefs and debate amongst others. In John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, the underlying message of this essay is that no one (collected group, or individual) is allowed to completely suppress the speech of others, regardless of authority or belief. The theory of free speech will be proven by specific evidence in John Mill’s essay on rights and regulations, the management of free speech in todays society, and personal belief on this topic.
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter” (Martin Luther King, Jr.). This quote means that everyone should have freedom of speech. I agree with this statement. This is a constitutional principle that we need to change around the world in freedom of speech. Our constitution is based off of freedom of speech. If someone speaks out about something, the chances are that another person around the world feels the same way.
This was the first amendment to be established and it means everyone has the right to express any opinion without being held back or censored. This could be regarded, however there should be a line line between free speech and hate speech. People should not be able to use the first amendment as a shield for attacking others with cruel or hurtful words, but instead it should be used as a way for people to have a chance of being heard and understood. Even though beliefs or ideas may not be accepted by others, they should not have to hide who they are in fear of those who disagree with who they are as people.
The Bill of Rights has gained existence since December 15, 1791. Being supported mainly by anti-federalists, the Bill of Rights upheld what was needed to protect individual liberty. From the ratification we have our first ten amendments. The most important and used today is the first amendment. The amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting… petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This amendment is very powerful but cannot be overly abused. Over time the freedom of speech has been constricted. There are many court cases that display the limitation of free speech. Environmental factors and certain materials are not covered in free speech. To understand our rights and know how and when our rights are limited, we must
Freedom of speech has many positive things, one of which is the help it gives on decision-making. Thanks to freedom of speech it is possible to express personal ideas without fear or restraints; therefore, all the perspectives and options will be on the table, giving people more opportunities to choose from. Nevertheless, everything in life has a limit, and the limit of freedom of speech depends directly on the consideration of the rights of others. People is free of believing what they want, thinking what they want, and even saying what they want, everything as long as they do not intrude or violate anyone else's rights. Under certain circumstances freedom of speech should be limited, and this is more than just a political action, this acts represent the urge for tolerance and the need for respect.
Such a central right, it is contended, should not to be restricted but to prevent genuine damage to others. Slander or yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater, for instance, can bring about genuine mischief and, hence, is really banned. Conversely, what grounds forbid as "hatred speech" is principally feeling that, while regularly hostile and disagreeable, does not bring about genuine damage. The basic right of free speech should not to be confined only to counteract hate speech. As Jesse Singal mentioned “This isn’t the behavior of people who are capable of weighing opposing ideas, or of changing their minds when they are confronted with evidence that suggests that they are wrong,” (Singal), this gave us an idea of how college students became less open to new ideas as they were restricted by speech
Freedom of speech has been the core principle we have fought long and hard for centuries to achieve. It is the fundamental reason why the founders seperated from England and started their own colonies on the idea of becoming free. In recent times the idea of freedom of speech has been put into question as there has been incidents for years of racism, religious differences and discriminatory abuse. What comes into question is what exactly is your freedom of speech rights and what should be and should not be said in the public eye. The problems that we see arising in today’s society is discrimination and abuse against one another for opposing views and what exactly should your freedom of speech rights entail to as many hate crimes have occurred