Most of the cases of regulation that he examines display what Thomas Grey of Stanford calls “practical neutrality,” or an intervention of regulation meant to protect individuals from illocutionary speech acts that can incite violence against them or psychological harm that may be incurred because it is intrinsically the right thing to do (305). This kind of regulation has ties to moral and political values, therefore from a liberal standpoint is unacceptable regulation. Altman agrees that hate speech can cause serious psychological damage to those who are victim to it, but maintains that it is not reason enough to regulate hate speech. Instead, he says that the wrong involved in hate speech is the act of treating another individual as a moral subordinate. The interests of these individuals as well as the value of their life are viewed as being inherently less important than the interests and lives of the reference group.
There is no doubt that the act is reprehensible and the teenagers are liable for property damage and intimidating a family, but the charge brought upon them focused on their motivation rather than their criminal acts. The optimal way to deal with hate speech is not to limit or prohibit it any manner, as that will only further enrage people as they feel they are being stripped of their constitutional rights, which they indeed are. Control over hate speech is not going to be a successful deterrent, but imposing stricter laws and regulations will. They discourage volatile acts without punishing an individual for their beliefs, even if they are contrary to the majority’s. To argue against the limitation of hate speech is not automatically equivalent to being racist or not caring about the well-being of others, specifically minority targets, but understanding the manner in which our Constitution operates.
Books should not be banned because book censorship is unnecessary, limits knowledge, and violates the fundamental principles of this country. Although some may say that certain books contain graphic/violent content, banning such books is not an effective method to prevent young children from being exposed to such content, and therefore is unnecessary. One person that harbors such beliefs is Christina Healey. In her article “Book Banning can be Justified in Some Cases,” she argues that in some cases, book banning is... ... middle of paper ... ... press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” When it comes to the issue of book banning, the First Amendment states that the government cannot make any laws that interfere with the freedom of the press. The Supreme Court has commonly upheld this right.
It seems fairly clear that hate speech when it targets historically or currently oppressed or disadvantaged groups has more power to cause mental and emotional pain than when it is directed at others. However, emotional distress is not itself a harm that can justify restricting speech. Arthur and Altman both agree on this point. Arthur concludes that the content alone of an act of speech cannot cause harm, and therefore that content restrictions like those in university speech codes are unjustifiable. The manner in which an opinion is expressed may be restricted, just as it can by governments: if an act of speech causes disruption to someone’s life, property, or education, then the university should not allow it, regardless of its
Critics of this sort of action agree that these offensive messages do exist, but legal action is not the way to deal with them. They believe that no individual acts the way the messages portray just because the messages exist. Another belief is that legal actions will intimidate creative people because it mak... ... middle of paper ... ...ce Clay, considered offensive by some, shouldn't be censored from those who find him humorous Freedom of speech is an important part of any democratic country. While some people may find Rush Limbaugh's portrayal of President Clinton offensive, his show should not be censored. This is the price that we pay to live freely in a democratic society.
Freedom of speech allows you to debate about a problem rather than getting in a physical confrontation. Freedom of speech is what people believe you need to solve something that 's problematic. People suppose freedom of speech is very much needed because without it we would be censored from speaking our mind meaning we can 't say what we want on social media or in person. We would be restrained and have to listen to rules on what we can and can 't say in certain places in the U.S. People use freedom of speech to express that murder ,abortion, or even racism is okay and acceptable. People express these things because they are protected by the right to freedom of speech and they can 't be put in jail for it.
Furthermore, The First Amendment jurisprudence has never provided absolute protection to all forms of speech. In some cases, a speech may also be restricted based on its content; that is if it falls within the narrow class of “true threats” of violence. A true threat is a statement that a reasonable recipient would take to mean that the speaker, or people working with the speaker, inten... ... middle of paper ... ... he can be. I believe that defamation laws tries to balance competing interests; thus, on one hand, people should not ruin others' lives by telling lies about them, but on the other hand, people should also be able to speak freely without fear of litigation over every insult, disagreement, or mistake. Political and social disagreement is important in a free society, and we obviously do not share the same opinions or beliefs each and every one of us.
The First Amendment does not protect the state or quality of being indecent, immoral, and vulgar. Being obscene is strongly offending the morality or personal rights others have as members of society. "Federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive viewers into viewing harmful or obscene material Miller vs. California"(Citizen's Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Obscenity). While it is true that the morality of another person should not be violated there should be an acceptation or group of words that should be permitted to be offensive. This word should be known to everyone and accepted as fighting.
Though the Bill of Rights clearly states freedoms like speech and press, privacy is an implied right also. Though the former freedoms contradict the privacy issue, there shouldn’t be any tinkering with the latter. Privacy is a vital concept. Sedition Acts are littered in America’s past. If people were so against the idea of not being to express themselves to others, they will surely react negatively to not being able to keep things even to themselves.
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.