I will always remember what my grandmother told me: “Be careful what you say because the words you use can either destroy or give hope. Once they are said they can not be deleted from people’s hearts.” That day I learned that words are powerful. According to the article, “Free Speech: Westboro Church Supreme Court Case First Amendment” in Christian Science Monitor, author Warren Richey discusses The First Amendment to define what is offensive and he shows historical facts where the Supreme Court used the First Amendment to resolve cases involving offensive speech. Also, the author concluded that offensive speech should not be banned because free speech is the free flow of ideas and the lifeblood of a democracy. However, I believe the United …show more content…
However, offensive speech degrades and hurts people. Using offensive words to say what you think about others could harm people’s feelings. For example, Albert Synder attending the funeral of his son, who was in the military when suddenly a group from the Westboro Church comes over and proclaimed, “God is killing American soldier for the sins of the country” (7). Those words made Mr. Synder feel upset, unpleasant; as a result he sued them. In addition, Mr. Synder and his family have the right to peacefully gather in church to mourn his son’s passing, and those people from Westboro Church were violating that right. Moreover, on Oct 6 the U.S Supreme Court examined if those members of the Westboro Church, went too far when they protest at the marine’s funeral (6). The US Supreme Court took up that case because it was an inappropriate place to protest. It is not the same that group of people take the streets, protest and publicize their thoughts, instead of going to a funeral, which is a private event and painful moment to say their offensives thoughts about the American’s soldiers. People do not have to go to inappropriate places like the funeral and use offensive speech in the name of the free speech, and think that everybody has to tolerate their offensive words. That is why offensive speech should be banned because it hurts and …show more content…
I admit that everyone has the right to freedom of thought and freedom speech. However, several questions come to my mind: Do people really need to use offensive speech to say what they think about the other? Does offensive speech resolve problems? Is really necessary to use it? As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes says, ‘“…separating speech that deserved protection from dangerous speech that did not’” (Richey, 61). This position shows us that people should realize the difference between offensive speech and freedom speech, since offensive speech could incite riots worldwide. People around the world have different beliefs, education, and religion, which is the essence of human being, to be different. What happens when people do not respect those differences that make everyone unique? Well, when offensive speech comes up it could produce disturbances between people and nations. The author says that at least four protesters died in Afghanistan, and 18 were killed in confrontations with police in Kashmir. That happened after angry Muslims took the streets in reaction to the plan to burn the Quran (56). That demonstrates how a simple offensive word or action toward another can provoke the death of people. As an illustration, in 2012 the film Innocence of Muslims was released, the director Sam Bacile, who makes fun of Islam and the Prophet Mohammad (something forbidden by the
Words are capable, and now and then the words we utilize affront individuals. The right to speak freely is very esteemed yet what happens when your opportunity gets to be destructive or rude to another person? There are such a large number of various types of individuals and diverse things that insult every individual. In this day where we are more disposed to say whatever we need, we see more offense being taken to the words that get said. It's difficult to comprehend why certain words can affront to somebody when it may not appear that approach to you. We need to ask ourselves, why do we mind what other individuals say and would it be advisable for us to censer everything that goes into general society just so individuals don't get annoyed?
Through government censorship, many religious, and nonreligious, activities have been stopped, disrupted, and insulted throughout the years. In fact, it is not just government that do this. Many people tend to be bothered by such activities and also work towards stopping and/or disrupting them. "'We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought'” (Bradbury 59) This quote from the text is when Beatty explains to Montag the importance of firemen. This quote helps to show how in a dystopian government, there are people who interrupt others activities to maintain “order”. In 2016, a youtuber by the name of Adam Saleh was kicked off a plane for speaking in a different language. “I am upset that that’s happening, really upset,” the passenger said. “‘Is there freedom of speech? They can speak in whatever language they want to on the plane.’” “‘In the video, as Saleh panned the camera around the plane cabin, a few passengers waved. Several could be heard shouting: ‘Bye!’” (Wang, Amy “YouTube star known for pranks claims he was kicked off Delta flight for speaking Arabic”) These quotes from an article describe how while some believe that people deserve freedoms, others may disagree. Because of this, those with more power (in this case a greater majority) get the unfair
If this were the case, freedom of expression could not exist at all because someone is always going to be offended by what another person says. Possessing freedom of expression means being tolerant and accepting of others who have differing opinions, or even offensive ones. This might not always be easy, but is what one has to deal with in order to voice their own voice and opinions. Accepting and tolerating others does not mean that one has to agree with them. Every individual is given the liberty to exercise their right to free speech.
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.
Should the First Amendment stop protecting hate speech? In Derek Bok’s “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, he argues that hate speech should be protected as censorship would be against the First Amendment. He declares “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communications is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree is offensiveness against the potential value of communication.... if we were to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (Bok 67) What Bok is attempting to say is that we can technically declare anything as offensive. The idea of hate speech is varying on the opinion of a person rather than law.
Because it is a Constitutional right, the concept of freedom of speech is hardly ever questioned. “On its most basic level [freedom of speech] means you can express an opinion without fear of censorship by the government, even if that opinion is an unpopular one” (Landmark Cases). However, the actions of Americans that are included under “free speech,” are often questioned. Many people support the theory of “free speech,” but may oppose particular practices of free speech that personally offend them. This hypocrisy is illustrated by the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was protested by many, but ultimately successfully defended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The residents of this predominantly Jewish town which contained many Holocaust survivors were offended by the presence of the Neo-Nazis. However, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, who...
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 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
Unlike many other countries America has freedom of speech. Even in other countries in Europe people are not allowed to use “hate speech” and they can be sent to prison for it. Fortunately, the American constitution defends people’s freedom of speech, no matter how controversial it is. Political correctness diminishes people’s free speech. It may not be direct but even indirectly the knowledge that someone might have adverse consequences; such as losing a job as a result of their speech is unacceptable. People have the right to state their opinions without others infringing on them, it was the principle in which America was founded. The first amendment of the constitution of the United States declares that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (US Const. amend. I, sec. i). While the first amendment only affects congress’s control over free speech, it indicates that free speech is a right that people must have. Some people are of the opinion that if something can be found offensive
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
Freedom of speech is archetypally recognised as a basic human right in free and democratic societies. When contending whether speech that may be deemed offensive should be safeguarded one may refer to the judgement of Redmond-Bate v. DPP:
The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Essentially, the First Amendment is supposed to give citizens the right to have free speech, free choice of religion, and the right to assemble peaceably. There are limitations to the First Amendment because every person interprets the rights differently. The Nazis most likely assumed that it was all right to hate people and say it in public, but the Jewish people disagreed, believing that hatred is unacceptable. Where is the line drawn when it comes to people being able to speak their minds? Justice Murphy, a member of the Supreme Court in 1942, had a say on what is considered allowable under the First Amendment and what crosses the line, and he stated,
In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into
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.
Words are very powerful, and sometimes the words we use offend people. Freedom of speech is highly valued but what happens when your freedom becomes hurtful or disrespectful to someone else? There are so many different kinds of people and different things that offend each person. In this day where we are more inclined to say whatever we want, we see more and more offense being taken to the words that get said. It's hard to understand why certain words can be insulting to someone when it may not seem that way to you. We have to ask ourselves, why do we care what other people say and should we censer everything that goes into the public just so people don't get offended?