Speech On Freedom Of Speech

1214 Words3 Pages

What does freedom of speech mean to you? Does freedom of speech to you, means you have the right to express yourself without government intervention? Or do you know there is a limit to what you can or cannot say under freedom of speech? Our founding fathers in the First Amendment writes, “The United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech”(Wikipedia). With that being said, the constitution is the law of the land, making free speech a civil liberty that is associate to every citizen of the United States of America. When the Supreme Court’s ruling came out asserting, “marriage equality is the law of the land,” Eric Rosswood reported in his article, “Tennessee Store Owner Bans 'The Homosexual People …show more content…

According to Kathleen Ann Ruane, the author of “Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment,” the Supreme Court has announced types of speech that are unprotected and may be forbidden completely under the First Amendment, ‘fighting words’ is one of them ( 1). An individual’s speech can be categorized as ‘fighting words’ when the nature of their speech, as Ruane has mentioned, “inflict[s] injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace”( 3). Since, ‘fighting words’ speech can have either outcome, Amyx’s speech should be considered as a ‘fighting words’ speech. Lets assumes that Amyx’s sign, “No Gays Allowed,” did not inflict injury; however, due to Amyx’s intention to not allow gays in his store, his expression tries incite an immediate breach of the peace as a result of his discontent with the Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage equality. And the breach of peace is the dissatisfaction and retaliation shown by his customers who supported marriage equality and made critiques via social media. According to Rosswood, they[the customers] have responded by filling Amyx’s store page on Yellow Pages with substantially low ratings and unpleasant …show more content…

An individual’s sexuality is their decision, it is their freedom of speech. The world needs more people who can comprehend changes in living standards and the dynamic and diversify cultures. Amyx is an example of an individual who is ignorant and stagnant to changes that is taking place, the world need less people like him who discriminate other people on their sexual orientation or of any other matters. We need more people who can accept differences in an ever changing living

Show More
Related

  • We Are Free To Be You Me Stupid And Dead Summary

    1357 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Everyone loves free expression as long as it isn't exercised” (Rosenblatt 501). In the article, We are Free to Be You, Me, Stupid, and Dead, Roger Rosenblatt argues for the people’s right to freedom of speech and expression, that is given by the U.S Constitution. Rosenblatt argues that freedom of speech is one of the many reasons the Founding Fathers developed this country. For this reason, Rosenblatt believes that we should be tolerant and accepting of other’s ideas and beliefs. Even if one does not agree with someone else, they need to be understanding and realize that people have differing opinions.

    Read More

  • We are Free to Be You, Me, Stupid and Dead by Roger Rosenblatt

    1178 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Symbolic Speech Should Be Protected

    2507 Words  | 6 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • The Scope of Free Speech: Categoricalism versus The Balancing Approach

    1014 Words  | 3 Pages

    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)

    Read More

  • Free Speech And Fighting Words Doctrine

    1229 Words  | 3 Pages

    It’ unanimous! With those two words, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that ‘fighting words’ were not protected under the constitution and etched out an exception to the First Amendment known as the Fighting Words Doctrine (Clark). The doctrine came out of the 1942 Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. New Hampshire State court found Chaplinsky guilty under its public law that “prohibited another person from expressing offensive, derisive and annoying words and names to anyone else in a public place” (Hudson) commonly referred to as ‘fighting words.’

    Read More

  • Freedom of Speech

    1581 Words  | 4 Pages

    Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for simply speaking one’s mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one’s mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one’s own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower’s belief will be stronger. The words sound so simple, but without them the world would be a very different place.

    Read More

  • Censorship in America

    1063 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Freedom Of Speech: The Second Amendment To The First Amendment

    1466 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Hate Speech is the Price We Must Pay for Freedom of Speech

    2303 Words  | 5 Pages

    Historically some hate speeches have contained fighting words, but they are view by the court as a separate entity. Fighting words are often classified as having absolutely no social value, and are not protected by the first amendment. In this regard I think that hate speech and fighting words are very analogous to indecent and obscene material. While indecent material might be frowned upon it is constitutionally protected, as where obscene material (also classified as having no social value) is not. This distinction was first made in the early 1940s in the Chaplinsky case.

    Read More

  • The Importance Of The Freedom Of Speech?

    1244 Words  | 3 Pages

    The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, which gradually merges into the modern perspective of the public throughout the history and present. The restriction over the cable TV and broadcast media subjected by the Federal Communications Commission violates the freedom of speech, irritating the dissatisfied public by controlling over what can be said on the air. Should the FCC interfere with the free speech of media? The discretion of content being presented to the public should not be completely determined by the FCC, but the public in its entirety which enforces a self-regulation with freedom and justice, upholding and emphasizing the freedom of speech by abolishing the hindrance the FCC brought.

    Read More

  • Freedom Of Speech

    1364 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • First Amendment and Free Speech

    1528 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • America's Decline of Freedom of Speech

    1492 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...ntinuously keeping people from saying what they want, the government is simply making them want to act out and speak out even more. To become a better nation or better citzens, we must learn to tolerate or accept the ideas of others no matter how absurd or profane they may be. No one has to agree with these ideas. Being able to tolerate the opinions of others leads to order and peace ( Tinder 44). For us to really be a free nation we must allow true free speech. “Order and peace are spontaneous and will tend to prevail wherever there is freedom” (Tinder 45).

    Read More

  • The Importance of Rhetoric and Discussion of Freedom of Speech

    1396 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the essays, “In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected” by Jonathan Rauch and “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims” by Charles R. Lawrence III, the writers express their beliefs on the topic of freedom of speech and prejudice speech; particularly racist. As far as any benefits of prejudice speech go, the two writers thoroughly disagree. Lawrence believes that there are no benefits of prejudice speech and it should not be included in what America’s “freedom of speech” entails, because of its effect on minorities as he writes, “Whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the importance of maintaining societal tolerance for all unpopular speech, we are asking blacks and other subordinated groups to bear the burden for the good of all” (Lawrence 624.) Rauch disagrees as he suggests, “…the realistic question is how to make the best of prejudice, not how to eradicate it” (Rauch 1) as he thinks prejudice has benefits that effect not only our freedom of speech in general, but other things such as science and our ability “to challenge orthodoxy, think imaginatively, [and] experiment boldly” (Rauch 2.) Although the two writers disagree on the benefits, they do agree on some negative connotations of prejudice speech. Lawrence believes that there is real harm that can be inflicted upon a person when a victim of prejudice speech, of which is “…far from trivial” (Lawrence 623.) Rauch similarly agrees as he views the prejudice speech to be effecting to the inner body and the soul as he notes, “All of these things are noted preverbally and assessed by the gut” and that “The fear engendered by these words is real” (Rauch 6.) However, Rauc...

    Read More

  • 1984 by George Orwell: The End of Freedom of Speech

    1600 Words  | 4 Pages

    Based on the First Amendment, the government may not exercise any activities that interference freedom of speech of an individual. For Americans, freedom of speech is clearly become the most basic freedom. Everyone has always thinks freedom of speech is a basic right that everyone automatically has when they were born; on the other hand, freedom of speech is experiencing serious growing pains.

    Read More

More about Speech On Freedom Of Speech

Open Document