More handpicked essays just for you.
The negative effects of freedom of speech
Introduction to first amendment essay
Introduction to first amendment essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When the founding fathers of the United States created the constitution; they made it to protect the general welfare of the people, initiate justice, establish domestic tranquility, and assure our liberty, and our well-being. Although the constitution was written in 1787, and slavery abolished in 1865, even then an African American man, women, or child was not able to exercise their first constitutional write. There has always been individuals who deify the constitution, and like to rule in their own way. The bloodshed of individuals exercising their first amendment is nothing new, it is tragedy that we cannot express how one really feels about any issue in our world, without having to worry about the consequences or repercussions. It seems far much easier to abolish someone who …show more content…
There is no coincidence in events, and things do not happen out of thin air. Yes, we are able say and do many things that were not possible before, but that still does take away the notion of consequences and ultimately life threatening aftermath. The massacre in Paris at Satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was an attack on freedom of speech, and an attack on bravery. When cartoonist Stephanie Charbonnier aka “Charb” made a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed as its “editor in Chief” was not intended to insult Islam, but rather to analyze, and examine just how politicians and religions sometime deserve. Ultimately massacring twelve casualty’s in this insensible war against freedom of speech and journalism. The act of murdering someone for drawing a picture as Charlie Hebdo’s did in a newspaper in Paris, will only create more hatred and turn people against each other which is not what we want. Freedom of speech and expression is everything to a modern
One of President Lincoln’s most notable infringements was his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Within months of taking the presidential oath, Lincoln ordered the suspension of habeas corpus, citing “supra-constitutional reasons for taking unilateral executive action.” Attorney General Edward Bates’ defense of Lincoln’s actions regarding habeas corpus in which he refers to it as a privilege rather than a guaranteed civil liberty serves as basis for proving the illegitimacy of this act. If the writ of habeas corpus, which protects citizens from unlawful imprisonment, is viewed in the manner that Bates (and Lincoln for that matter) refers to it, one of the most basic constitutional liberties of a right to trial can easily be deprived and can very well devolve into despotism later
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights which includes the first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These rights apply to the citizens of our great country. The Fourth Amendment covers search laws and has a significant impact on law enforcement procedures. If these procedural rights are not followed, there can be devastating consequences to the outcome of a case.
This amendment was created during the reconstruction phase attempting to reunite this country after the brutal battles of the Civil War. Henretta and Brody emphasize how the Republicans were progressing in a direction to sanctify the civil rights of the black community. These authors contend the vital organ of the document was the wording in the first section. It said “all persons born or naturalized in the United States were citizens.” No state could abridge “the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”; deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; or deny anyone “the equal protection of the laws.”2 Imagine the problems that could arise in the country if repeal were to come to a realization. Henretta and Brody point out how the wording in section 1 of the document was written in a way that could be construed as inexplicit. The reason for this was for the judicial system and Congress could set an example for balance in due process here in the
In particular, the political freedoms that were given to the freedmen were rigged to prevent them from properly using their rights, but they still retained a few political rights that they could still exercise. According to the chart in Document A, Black men in 10 out of 16 states could vote, though voting in half of those states was restricted due to requirements, like owning property. Also, all the states except Massachusetts did not allow Black men to do Jury duty (Doc. A). More than half the states allowed Blacks to vote, yet most of these freedmen could not due to the property requirements. They were given political rights, but could not use them because of their circumstances. But the free African Americans had some say in the government because a few of them could vote, and all it takes is one vote to change the world. In addition, it is stated in Document B that "...he shall not be free... to share with us the deliberations of the jury box- to attend us in our courts- to represent us in legislature" (Doc. B). This only proves that the white people are denying the blacks rights given to white men, and should also be allowed to them because they are americans. It caused d...
The US constitution was written with great vision to create strong nation. The bill of right were written, it provide all humans with rights. The writers of the constitution we hypocrites, they didn’t abide by what they preached. Thomas Jefferson wrote himself “ all men are created equal” but he owned slaves. The founding father didn’t look or even think about slavery when they wrote the constitution. They were pre-occupied in getting the southern state to join the union and sign the new constitution. They southern states believed that the federal government shouldn’t mess with the issue on slavery because slavery was a state issue.
One reason we must have the second amendment is to protect the freedom for which our country fought so hard to win. The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”[1] However, if these rights were ‘self-evident’, why did the founding fathers need to grant them to the states? We might as well ask why man is the way that he is, imperfect. We all wonder about this sad truth, but the fact remains that man is fallen. These rights are self-evident, obvious to human reason, but because humans are fallen, we are sometimes blinded to these apparent truths and we err in our rationality. King George was blind to these unalienable rights, as were Na...
The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met between May and September of 1787 to address the problems of the weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation. The Antifederalists were extremely concerned that the national government would trample their rights. Rhode Island and North Carolina refused to ratify until the framers added the Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments outlined things that the government could not do to its people. They are as such:
We the people of the United States of America has the right to bare arms. So should the United States government abolish the right to own guns? The second amendment states, “ … Right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Which means that all american citizens that meet the criteria to own firearms should and can obtain them legally. It is an outrage that our government is considering to abolish the second amendment because we as people needs to protect our families from terror, abolishing the second amendment will make the law-abiding citizens in America in a state of constant fear, Also, it will remove a large economic market.
“We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” If the confusion has not yet set in, then give it a moment. This nation, the United States of America, prides itself on being far superior to all other nations because here in America we are free men. We set ourselves on a pedestal above Great Britain because the Declaration of Independence clearly states that everyone inside the parameters of our country will be treated as equal as the same individuals neighbor. Yet for nearly three centuries, our nation was full of individuals, including our forefathers, who “owned” people that were regarded as less than themselves simply due to the fact that the pigments in their skin did not allow them to fall within the Caucasian race. The very legal document that had the word “Independence” written within it’s name and blatantly stated that it is obvious that no human is greater than any other because we were all made by the same god for the same reason, is the foundation of a nation that used innocent lives as fuel for slavery. It wasn’t until some educated individuals finally stood up and realized how incredibly wrong these two concepts are when put together. It is said that when the former slave Frederick Douglass
America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion recommends a practice that is contrary to public morals, such as polygamy, Congress may prohibit such a practice (Weidner, Daniel, 2002). The people of the United States also have the right to assemble peaceably under the First Amendment. The only restriction comes from the word peaceably. Assembly may not be prevented, as long as the proper authorities have reasonable assurance that the meeting will be peaceful (Weidner, Daniel, 2002).
In today’s society, free speech is a right guaranteed to every American in the U.S., but not all countries give their citizens that right. As computer and internet technology has grown, so too has the number of violations against free speech around the world. Some of these include censorship of the press by the government, punishment for speaking against the government, and punishment for voicing unpopular opinions. The computer and internet technology of the world is often used in these suppressions of free speech.
The news today has to do with what people want to hear, not particularly what is worth while or even accurate. In the Daily Telegraph’s (English newspaper) foreign news page there is a story of an outbreak of violence by political protests in the Middle East. Patrick Bishop, the senior editor on Middle Eastern affairs, writes: "Western leaders are becoming increasingly concerned by the threat to democracy posed by the growth of Islamic fundamentalists extremism." Other headlines from random British newspapers convey the same message: "Italy on security alert after Islam terror warning; Clinton to lead summit against Islamic terror; France fears protracted Islam terror campaign; Islamic fanatics gun down Briton in terror campaign" (Edward Mortimer). This is the message that the media is sending to all its readers and watchers about Islam. These headlines may have hap...
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.
Several events rapidly unfolded soon after with the shooting in Montrouge, Paris which killed a policewoman and injured a man and a siege at a kosher supermarket at Porte de Vincennes in the east of Paris. These events are said to be linked to the initial attack on Charlie Hebdo, and the religious intent behind them seems to be a tad more justified due to the controversial satirical paper which consistently broadcasts its anti-religious views. Again, such events further fuel Islamophobia but where does such extremism stem from if it is not linked to an organisation? Charlie Hebdo does not discriminate in the religions it mocks in its weekly cartoons, but why is that only a few individuals were offended to the point of such terrorism on a micro scale? These self-initiated attacks may be due to one’s inability to detach his personal identity from his religion - his religion is so entwined with his self-identity that when it is put under question, he takes it as a personal attack against him as a person. Such a situation is not only exclusive to the Islamic extremist community, but it shows a worrying trend that being too overtly blinded by one’s beliefs can spark acts of terrorism that induce worldwide outrage and