Guiding Question: Should we be able to express anything we feel? Side A believes we should be censored and limited on what we can say. Other people believe we should be able to speak freely and express ourselves no matter where we are. They believe that we should be able to say what we feel even if it offends people.They also suppose that we are protected by the amendment and have the right to have freedom of expression whether it 's verbally or through our body language. These people want for everyone to speak their minds and don 't believe being censored would make anything better.
Freedom of speech means that one must speak his mind to without fear of being punished, detained or discriminated against it. Freedom of speech also means that you may distribute your personal views, for example by organizing a demonstration against a new law, or publish his opinion in a newspaper, on the radio, television or the Internet. Freedom of speech is one of the human rights that the United Nations has included in 'The Universal Declaration of Human Rights'. All 193 member states of the UN have agreed so to guarantee the freedom of speech in their country. Nevertheless, it is not respected everywhere, including in countries where there is war or that have a dictator as head.
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.
Freedom of speech and press, or freedom of expression, are "fundamental rights". Without these freedoms a truly free society cannot exist. By definition, they allow the citizens to communicate their ideas both verbally and in print. There are many advantages, as well as disadvantages, that an individual receives these rights. However, as with most constitutional freedoms, free of expression can be limited under certain circumstances.
People are being told that they have the ability to say whatever they want and believe in; however, many people are facing lawsuits and even consequences for doing so. With that said, one could wonder whether there is inadequacy in our constitution that is allowing people to be reprimanded for practicing their rights. However, it is not always citizens who are being challenged by the government for abuse of free speech. In his essay, “In Defense Of Prejudice”, Jonathan Ra... ... middle of paper ... ...solution is to ask which is more important: prohibiting language that could provoke or offend people (and thus prohibit any sort of opposition) or allow people to think out of the norm and different than what is considered morally acceptable? Conforming to censorship can only lead to silencing our voices and ultimately narrow our thoughts and minds.
You are not forced to see or hear the offensive speech. Opponents of the "first amendment view" believe that "just saying no" is not enough. For example, children most likely will not say no. This is why these people believe that the government should at least have the right to censor what children see. Some people believe that censorship is the answer, others do not.
In the essay written by John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, the topic of freedom of speech is discussed. First off I’d like to discuss how free speech is considered to be an advantage of living in North America and many other countries as well. But is it really? The government technically cannot put any restrictions on speech, because they can’t physically restrain people from saying something. The only thing that the government can do is invoke punishments and consequences for people who say things that the government does not want to be said for whatever reason.
Protests are given the stigma of always being violent in some form, and although the freedom of assembly is included in the First Amendment for United States citizen, violence is not permissible. Many of today’s protests turn into some form of violence. What many citizens are unaware of is the fact that the First Amendment “provides for ‘the right of the people peaceably to assemble.’ The key word is ‘peaceably’-violent protesting is not allowed” (Frequently Asked). If an individual wants to limit the freedom of speech based off the violence sometimes involved with assemblies, the First Amendment actually authorizes for peaceful assemblies only. Therefore when a protest or assembly turns violent, the First Amendment does not apply, and authorities have the right to put an end to that specific
Some people do not go by the First Amendment though. They think there should be limitations to what others say because words can hurt someone, be insulting, and misunderstood. I understand that people should not say words that can be disrespectful to others, but with the first amendment they have the right to speak freely. I understand that there should be a limit to what can be said over the internet and what people say in general but they cannot stop the thoughts of other people. People should be respectful and considerate about what they are saying and respect others and what they too have to say otherwise we would have no freedom of speech.
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.