Freedom Of Speech: The Second Amendment To The First Amendment

Stanley Fish states in his essay “The Free-Speech Follies”, “The modern American version of crying wolf is crying First Amendment” (496). The First Amendment is made up of five basic freedoms given to the United States citizens that consist of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to hold a peaceful protest, freedom of press, and the right to protest. Within the Constitution there are no words that state the rights include for society to speak rudely to, or about, others. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains, “Slander consists of orally making and libel consists of publishing false statements that are damaging to the reputation of another” (1). People are allowed to have their own beliefs and opinions; however, they should not

When the individual gets attacked verbally because of their controversial statements, they claim that they had the right to speak their mind no matter how disturbing their words were. They use the First Amendment as a cover for their wrong-doings, and that is never okay. They need to be educated on what they can and cannot say. Just because the First Amendment guarantees a person the freedom of speech, does not mean that they are entitled to say whatever they please. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains if an individual were to use “fighting words” then they are automatically not covered under their First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “fighting words” were not constitutional, so they would not be protected under the First Amendment (2). Many people misunderstand that much of their opinions that they speak consists of words that are unclear. More than half of the time the words they use in their statements are considered to be fighting words, for they are rude and ignorant. There is no need for the obscene words that they use to be protected under the First Amendment. They must become aware of their lack of knowledge for what “fighting words” are; furthermore, they

The article ¨Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” delineates when Salman Rushdie published his novel that consisted of many unfair statements about Muslims, there were many violent protests around the world as an outcome (1). Rushdie, the author of the very controversial novel, pleaded that the First Amendment protected his writings, but this is invalid. His writings caused riots that turned to be extremely violent where many people got hurt; furthermore, since his words caused this chaos, he is no longer protected. The Constitution does not provide any statements that prove that these people who start riots are to be protected under their rights. The American people must wake up and realize that their ignorant actions are not protected; moreover, their actions are their responsibility. They chose to speak their mind, so they must have to own up to the repercussions that follow. If a person is responsible for causing a riot that ends in many injuries, or even death, they should not be able to claim that the First Amendment protects their violations. The article continues with if a person were to stand up in front of a large or small crowd and purposely speak of topics that would begin a riot, they would not be protected under the First Amendment (1). Many individuals are unaware that as soon as they begin speaking of controversial topics, and purposely