Essay on The Freedom Of Speech

This guarantees every individual the freedom to write and read what they choose. Yet in the past twenty years, thousands of books have been challenged in almost every state. This censorship is against the American ideals of individual freedom. While most censors intend to “protect” others from things they consider objectionable (Time, p.85), they are still taking away the rights of others to choose for themselves.

In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and

Some claim that speech and the press should be censored, while others insist that censorship is unconstitutional. In 1917, the Espionage Act was passed which made it a crime to release, write, or spread information that interfered with the U.S. military, as well as making its crime to support enemy countries (“Espionage Act of 1917”). Two years later, Charles Schenck distributed pamphlets that spoke out against the draft. Obstructing the draft is a criminal offense so Schenck went to court and in his court case Schenck v. United States it was established in that people have the right to say as they please as long as their words don’t provoke “clear and present danger”. The “clear and present danger” doctrine was therefore added to the First Amendment and provided judges a test to determine whether or not a person's speech can be restricted (“Schenck v. United States”). There have been numerous cases that have established limitations on individual freedoms if there was a possibility of endangering the people. These events have led to revisions, in the form of clauses and occasionally amendments to be implemented in society. When major changes are not made, the Constitution is still used to justify and condemn acts, which proves that it is a living

Citizens of the United States are privileged to the freedom of speech under the First Amendment, but the constitutional limits of the freedom of speech have been questioned on multiple occasions. Citizens of the United States have called upon the Supreme Court numerous times to interpret the meaning of the First Amendment, and the court has censored some forms of speech such as obscene speech --which has been prohibited--and indecent or pornographic speech--which has been regulated (Barrett, 1999). Public and private properties, institutions, and businesses started censoring and placing limitations on hate speech in 1980 (Roleff, p.64). Hate speech is defined as speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation (Barrett, 1999). “ In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group” (Barnes and Ephross, 1994). Several debates have lingered over if certain restrictions on hate speech violate the First Amendment (Simmons, 2012). Hate speech should be regulated and censored by the federal government; however, these regulations and policies will limit an individual 's freedom of speech.

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” These words were spoken by Benjamin Franklin, one of our nation’s founding fathers, when the United States was still a newly independent country. Free speech, which is defined as the right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government, is a subject that is still present in the minds of many people today. At one extreme of the spectrum is a group of folks that do not care the slightest bit about free speech issues and at another end is a group of people who will vehemently fight to protect their right to free speech. In a middle ground, like most peoples’ stance, lay a large group of

Ratified December 15, 1791, Congress agreed that citizens of the United States had the right to stop the government from infringing on a person or media’s freedom of speech or the press. However, even though there have been landmark cases, such as Near v. Minnesota, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, New York Times Co. v. United States, and United States v. Manning, that have shaped how the freedom of the press clause should be applied, it has become very clear that the First Amendment does not always guard against censorship in university and college media, especially in private organizations. Based on the examination of public school freedom of the press cases in comparison to private universities freedom of the press examples, the research shows that private institutions should be allowed the same liberties that public universities and commercial publications are provided.

In 1791, the United States adopted the first amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law 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 (Ivers, 2013).” The freedom of speech that is documented in the First Amendment is not only constitutional protected, but it’s also a very important part of the democratic government independence, which holds essential values in our society. American citizen’s right to free speech should be held as one of the highest virtue and any censorship of freedom of speech should not be allowed, but only respected

Two-hundred and twenty-eight years ago, our founding fathers instituted a previously taboo idea of freedom of speech. Although today’s society differs greatly from society in 1789, the main principles of freedom of speech have been warped into an oasis for discriminatory speech, shutting down others on their personal opinions and beliefs. For example, Native Americans have faced violent oppression for centuries, specifically regarding the Trail of Tears when they were pulled from their homes and settlements and forced to move, and the Dakota Pipeline project, when their homes were invaded by industry itself. Today, colleges and universities have established speech codes and other limits on speech that contradicts

I have an idea!  How about we let everyone freely speak their minds about issues and ideas.  Some will be better than others will of course, but the outcome will be a compilation of everyone’s best thoughts.  Everyone that is, except you.  We, meaning the country, decided that whatever it is that you have to say isn’t all that important and it is recommended that you keep all your thoughts to yourself as it is hard not to be offensive to everyone at the same time.  By offensive I mean to displease someone.  In general, no one really likes what you have to say.  Therefore it has been decided that you and only you will be silenced.

The definition of freedom of speech is the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. (Morse & Mish, 2012) However, one cannot go about just saying whatever they please. There are in fact limitations to what one can say. Some might say that that is unconstitutional, but is it unconstitutional to prevent people from threatening others or preventing others from incriminating another person’s rights. I think not. The Supreme Court is the judge of whether or not a person has or has not broken the law regarding freedom of speech.

There are many phrases and use of words that can be considered controversial in the past as well in todays society. The first amendment 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.” (Volokh, 2016.). Throughout history, congress has kept up their end of the deal with no laws being established against religion, and those who peacefully assemble due to recent protests has not be interrupted by the government, for it is their right as citizens to practice their freedom of speech. Throughout history, there have been times were civilians felt some of these rights were infringed by the government within the United States, as well as outside of the United States, where other countries may have found themselves in a situation of government versus an individual or group when it came to their rights not being fulfilled by their government.

Freedom of speech has been an argued topic ever since it was introduced to the American people as a constitutional principle. Many use this birth given right to voice their opinions peacefully, violently, or to validate their participation in something morally unjust. Throughout the course of American history, there has been numerous examples of Americans exercising their freedom of speech with an end goal to either create positive or negative outcomes. Due to the controversy this topic creates, there 's several different aspects to how this principle is perceived and expressed. One side believes that freedom of speech is necessary, that people have the right to voice their opinion; another viewpoint believes that freedom of speech is

Madison's version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison's draft, to make it read: ''The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.''2

Freedom of Speech is a right we should all be thankful for, and true art should never be censored. Unfortunately, the world of media must follow certain guidelines. The artists on this list must have known these videos would be heavily censored, but they probably didn't think the videos would be banned from television.

Freedom of speech should have some limitations. The American people should have the right to say whatever they want, but to an extent. Whether it is on signs or verbally some things should not be expressed. The United States is well known for being “the home of the free,” but some people take their freedom a bit too far. People can burn flags, protest at military funerals, even use the “n” word and watching pornography in libraries.