Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Limitations that should be on freedom of speech
Limitations that should be on freedom of speech
Freedom of speech in a free society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Limitations that should be on freedom of speech
Imagine yourself in a world where you could not say what you wanted, or express how you feel. Everyday thoughts that are said out loud like, “Man, this lesson is dumb” were no longer permitted to be anything other than thoughts. Many people in other countries have rules and regulations on what they can and cannot say. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives Americans the right to free speech (Lakoff 260). Learning to speak is something our parents praise us for when we are little. Why, after all the waiting time they endured, would parents let strangers decide what their child could or could not say. Censorship of language and speech is becoming too strict.
Although we have the right to freedom of speech there are some restrictions such as “fighting words” that are not permitted by the First Amendment. The essay “There's No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It's a Good Thing, Too” by Stanley Fish, contains information about the court case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The court declared in the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case that, “some forms of speech are not really speech because their purpose is to incite violence or because they are 'fighting words,' words likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of peace” (Fish 307) Chaplinsky was a Jehovah's Witness who got into a verbal argument with the town marshal. Chaplinsky was arrested and found guilty for calling the town marshal a “Goddamned racketeer” and a “damned Fascist” (Lakoff 264).
In the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case, the courts assumption was, “that some words are so very bad that on hearing them, an ordinary person must strike out (as reflexively as, when the doctor taps your knee with a hammer, you have to j...
... middle of paper ...
...ities in life and one of those is to realize when their thoughts and opinions are welcome and when they are not. These same people also know that they have the right to say what they want, they just should also know to have enough respect for the people to whom they are speaking. Everyone has rights and they should be able to keep them. Take advantage of your rights while you still have them.
Works Cited
Fish, Stanley. “There's No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It's a Good Thing, Too” Exploring Language. University of Oklahoma ed. New York: Pearson Custom, 2009. 304-16. Print.
Kors, Alan. “The Betrayal of Liberty on America's Campuses” Exploring Language. University of Oklahoma ed. New York: Pearson Custom, 2009. 294-300. Print.
Lakoff, Robin. “Hate Speech” Exploring Language. University of Oklahoma ed. New York: Pearson Custom, 2009. 259-66. Print.
Throughout America, people place a high value in their freedom of speech. This right is protected by the first Amendment and practiced in communities throughout the country. However, a movement has recently gained momentum on college campuses calling for protection from words and ideas that may cause emotional discomfort. This movement is driven mainly by students who demand that speech be strictly monitored and punishments inflicted on individuals who cause even accidental offense. Greg Lukianoff and Johnathan Haidt discuss how this new trend affects the students mentally and socially in their article The Coddling of the American Mind published in The Atlantic Monthly. Lukianoff and Haidt mostly use logical reasoning and references to
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?
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.
The documentary, Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech, shows us just that: stories from a range of people who have danced on the line of what is considered “free speech,” a first amendment right. The first amendment, according to the US Constitution, reads: “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.” The two stories that jumped out at me were the stories told by Debbie Almontaser and Chase Harper. Though each of their stories are very different, each story has a similar lining to it in regard to the
The free speech clause in the Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (US Const., amend I). This clause, albeit consists of a mere ten words, holds much power and affluence in the American unique way of life. It guarantees Americans the right to speak freely without censorship by preventing the government from restricting the rights of the people to express their opinions. Consequently, this freedom can encourage citizens’ participation in politics; promote an adaptable and tolerant community; facilitate the discovery of truth; and ultimately create a stable nation. However, how much freedom should be granted to an individual? Where should the line be drawn for the coverage free speech protection? (1) What happens when the exercise of free speech puts other constitutional values in jeopardy? What values should prevail? (2) In an attempt to address these questions, many opposing interpretations have been presented. While some construe this clause in an absolute, categorical approach, others take on a more lenient, balancing stance. (1)
Banks, G. (2011, July 18). As social media expand, rulings evolve for students and teachers expressing freedom of speech. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved May 3, 2014, from http://www.post-gazette.com/home/2011/07/18/As-social-media-expand-rulings-evolve-for-students-and-teachers-expressing-freedom-of-speech/stories/201107180190#ixzz30tCKfc
The United States of America is arguably one of the best nations in the democratic free world. Citizens of U.S. have freedoms granted by the federal government, which allows freedoms like freedom of religion and freedom of expression. In the constitution for the United States government, the federal government is prohibited to take away certain freedoms like free speech. On the other hand, think it is a good idea to limit free speech in order not to cause emotional harm in different environments. In consequence free speech has started to be limited throughout different entities such as the private sector and places of high education due to political correctness. freedom of speech should not be limited because it contradicts the very purpose
The U.S. Supreme Court has defined “fighting words” as words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” and are words that are "likely to cause an average addressee to fight." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace (Downs 7).
When freedom of speech is confined in higher institutions, it diminishes the budding adult’s importance of this crucial right. Freedom of speech was formulated by our founding fathers to insure that all citizens had a right to speak out against whatever injustices done to them without fear of punishment. However, the institutions that are responsible for the advancement of America’s f...
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
This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a protesting march Johnson burned an American flag. The research for this paper will allow the reader to examine some of the different ways that free speech can be expressed, to what extent it may or may not be expressed and possibly where free speech may or may not be prohibited.
What if people were punished, put in jail, or even killed, just for expressing their opinions?
On December 15, 1791, Congress adopted the freedom of speech as a constitutional right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as a law to protect all American citizens. The law clearly 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 of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (www.law.cornell.edu). Although this law is in effect, there are exceptions to policy and many other categories that are excluded from the freedom, in which the government may enact within a reasonable amount of time, place or manner restrictions on speech. According to the famous speech written by Raphael Cohen-Almagor, it states that freedom of speech is a guiding rule, one of the foundations of democracy, but at the same time, freedom does not imply anarchy, and the right to exercise free expression does not include the right to do unjustified harm to others.
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...