Free speech allows and protects everyone to talk and express themselves without any restrictions. Freedom of speech is the fundamental liberties in order to build a democracy country. Democracy cannot be existed without freedom (Sharma, 2016). Every country have their own laws regarding to restrict freedom of speech. In Malaysia, there are 3 clauses regarding to freedom of speech. Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4) --- (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression; (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) all citizens have the right to form associations ("FEDERAL CONSTITUTION", 2010). In the relevant Part of Article 10(2) (a) Parliament may restrict freedom of speech and expression which …show more content…
Hate speech was frequently expressed openly in the public sphere especially through social media and it will cause a serious consequences if it is not managed well. According to Kate Mayberry, transgender in Malaysia are currently facing a daily risk of attack just for being themselves. Transgender in Malaysia are still waiting for the court decision to accept them as a normal person (Mayberry, 2014). Hate speech about LGBT in Malaysia always attack and offense transgender. LGBT has been fighting for years for their legalization in Malaysia. Activists who oppose with the government are attacked by the authorities under the Sedition Act (Leach, 2015). For instance, Nisha Ayub, a LGBT rights activist who used to win a Human Rights Watch Award was arrested under an anti-crossdressing law by a Sharia court. Nisha Ayub claimed that strict Islamic law had force her to attempt suicide several time. She said that people treat her in a way like she do not have any human rights and dignity. She was suffered from hate speech attack in Malaysia for almost every day (Borneo Post Online, 2016). On the other hand, Hazim Ismail, who admitted he is a gay and an atheist is facing public backlash in Malaysia, which is his home country. Hazim Ismail was disowned by his family because his family believe that a gay had already go against with the Muslim faith. Besides that, Hazim Isamil’s friend also started to discriminate and unfriend with him because in Malaysia, homosexuality is punishable and of course, transgender will be treated as an abnormal person. Finally, Hazim Isamil could not handle the hate speech attacks and threats of violence anymore and he managed to seek asylum in Canada (Kaschor, 2016). From this two cases we can see that LGBT in Malaysia are strictly prohibited
Clear and Danger was evaluated in the First Amendment and guarantees the right of Freedom of Speech. I have two scenarios regarding clear and danger, the first scenario is Debs v United States. In this case Debs v United States, Debs felt that socialism is the answer; however, Deb’s was prosecuted for the remarks that he made. In addition, the speech that Deb gave wasn’t as harsh as made by others, for example, George McGovern made a remark about the Viet Nam War during his 1972 presidential bid which was very harsh. This process was done by using its weak form of the clear-and-present-danger test and Deb’s ended up being sentenced to a ten year sentence. In this case Deb’s couldn’t speak everything on his mind that he wanted which was a violation
Free speech gives the government an opportunity to listen to what the people want in a peaceful manner. When taking a peaceful approach and creating an improved system, the likelihood of the government responding and making changes becomes
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 the “Derechos, Human Rights”, freedom of speech is one of the most dangerous rights, because it means the freedom to express one's discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. These types of rights are protected by ACLU and other type of organization like UNESCO. ACLU is “America’s nation's guardian of liberty”, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in America. Freedom of speech is a gift to human beings, without this right the people couldn’t express themselves or even worst, to say what they feel or want for a better life. United States is one of the countries that protect this right, but in the world there are governments that do not respect and do not know that this right exists. The relation between democratic government and freedom of speech is that they both depend in each other.
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.
Since this country was founded, we have had a set of unalienable rights that our constitution guarantees us to as Americans. One of the most important rights that is mentioned in our constitution is the right to free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
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.
The Free Speech Movement (FSM) at the University of California at Berkeley started during the fall of 1964. (Freeman, Jo) But there were many events leading up to this point. The Free Speech Movement began to obtain momentum in the fall of 1963 and the spring of 1964 the Bay Area was rocked with the civil rights demonstrations against employers who practiced racial discrimination. (Freeman, Jo) These students believed that this was wrong and felt the need to do something about it. So many Berkeley students were recruited for these protests from Bancroft and Telegraph which where the companies that were racial discriminating against races and groups of people.(Freeman, Jo) With these protest there were many arrest made of Berkeley students there were about 500 arrests made over several months. (Freeman, Jo)
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...
In the essays, “In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected” by Jonathan Rauch and “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims” by Charles R. Lawrence III, the writers express their beliefs on the topic of freedom of speech and prejudice speech; particularly racist. As far as any benefits of prejudice speech go, the two writers thoroughly disagree. Lawrence believes that there are no benefits of prejudice speech and it should not be included in what America’s “freedom of speech” entails, because of its effect on minorities as he writes, “Whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the importance of maintaining societal tolerance for all unpopular speech, we are asking blacks and other subordinated groups to bear the burden for the good of all” (Lawrence 624.) Rauch disagrees as he suggests, “…the realistic question is how to make the best of prejudice, not how to eradicate it” (Rauch 1) as he thinks prejudice has benefits that effect not only our freedom of speech in general, but other things such as science and our ability “to challenge orthodoxy, think imaginatively, [and] experiment boldly” (Rauch 2.) Although the two writers disagree on the benefits, they do agree on some negative connotations of prejudice speech. Lawrence believes that there is real harm that can be inflicted upon a person when a victim of prejudice speech, of which is “…far from trivial” (Lawrence 623.) Rauch similarly agrees as he views the prejudice speech to be effecting to the inner body and the soul as he notes, “All of these things are noted preverbally and assessed by the gut” and that “The fear engendered by these words is real” (Rauch 6.) However, Rauc...
Based on the First Amendment, the government may not exercise any activities that interference freedom of speech of an individual. For Americans, freedom of speech is clearly become the most basic freedom. Everyone has always thinks freedom of speech is a basic right that everyone automatically has when they were born; on the other hand, freedom of speech is experiencing serious growing pains.
In the book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment, the author Anthony Lewis gives us lots of law cases following by the timeline to state how the First Amendment developed and what its meaning in both law and society is. By reading this book after listening to lectures about free speech and reading A Gift of Fire written by Sara Baase, the textbook for the lecture, I have learned more detailed about the history and definition development of the freedom of speech and hence came up some new thoughts towards my life.
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.
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
First of all, what does Freedom of Speech mean to people? According to some, it is the