Free Speech Dying in the Western World Free speech has evolved immensely throughout the decades. Before its establishment, free speech was a right that was mightily fought for. As the past years consisted of male dominance, it was mostly males who had the privilege to be vocal about their opinions. With the dedication and perseverance brought forth by women and the minority races to be given the equal opportunity to free speech, it has become a universal right for all races and gender. Free speech is a right that is so aggressively exercised nowadays, that it has caused a negative shift in momentum of the privileges given under free speech, which results in Jonathan Turley stating that “free speech is dying in the Western World” in his article. …show more content…
In reference to my observations and personal experiences, we wake up and check our phones constantly throughout the day, whether it is to read a text message or browse social media apps and read the latest news on a celebrity along with the comments posted in reply to that news. Turley says, “of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people ─ challenging social taboos or political values” (Turley, 1). This year’s election is a great paradigm of how effective social media is with free speech. Posts on social media in relation to the election triggered innumerable political debates as people would challenge others’ political remarks about each candidate and about the United States. Strikes and protests because of the election has erupted in violence and chaos among opposing political parties as communities are expressing their opinions of the election through free speech. Violence due to free speech has caused the government to think of ways to limit the way people exercise their right, such as imposing censorship within social media contents
The case, R. v. Keegstra, constructs a framework concerning whether the freedom of expression should be upheld in a democratic society, even wh...
From the opening sentence of the essay, “We are free to be you, me, stupid, and dead”, Roger Rosenblatt hones in on a very potent and controversial topic. He notes the fundamental truth that although humans will regularly shield themselves with the omnipresent First Amendment, seldom do we enjoy having the privilege we so readily abuse be used against us. 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”.
This source supplies my paper with more evidence of how freedom of speech is in a dangerous place. American has always stood by freedom of speech, and to see how social media platforms try to manipulate and take off as the choose to increase slight bias is unpleasant. The article establishes a worry to the fellow readers that hold freedom of speech so high and that it is at risk. The article manages to explain why freedom of speech is in danger, and why there should be no limits to free speech.
1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:
The first official protest was held in May 1960 in the San Francisco Hall. The protest was held whilst a meeting for the House of Un-American Committee (HUAC) was taking place. It was a stand against US oppression of political freedom, and with the work of HUAC hitting close to him – a Berkeley student had been subpoenaed, the students were ready to make their opposition heard.
Herbeck, Tedford (2007). Boston College: Freedom of Speech in the United States (fifth edition) Zacchini vs. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company 433 U.S. 562 Retrieved on March 2, 2008 from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/zacchini.html
According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).
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.
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 is the right of civilians to openly express their opinions without constant interference by the government. For the last few years, the limitations and regulations on freedom of speech have constantly increased. This right is limited by use of expression to provoke violence or illegal activities, libel and slander, obscene material, and proper setting. These limitations may appear to be justified, however who decides what is obscene and inappropriate or when it is the wrong time or place? To have so many limits and regulations on freedom of speech is somewhat unnecessary. It is understood that some things are not meant to be said in public due to terrorist attacks and other violent acts against our government, but everything should not be seen as a threat. Some people prefer to express themselves angrily or profanely, and as long as it causes no har...
Lawrence, Charles R., III. "The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims." (n.d.): n. pag. Print.
The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used, also known as the Freedom of Speech. In America today, political correctness seems to be encroaching on this right. Advocates to the politically correct movement believe that language should be broken down into terms that enhance the self-esteem of certain groups, like the term mankind to them is considered gender bias, therefore is it is not sensitive to females. “Political correctness supplies a language through which it is easy to be a victim and always someone or something that can be blamed. Think of terms like culturally deprived, developmentally challenged, etc. Political correctness involves a lot of people attempting to explain the reasons for their lack of great success.” (Youngkins.E, 2004). Political correctness has made our society afraid to speak freely without the fear of some political correctness group turning an innocent slip of the tongue into an overblown publicity campaign for their own means while tarnishing the accused’s reputation with unfair labels of bigot, racist or sexist. Advocates have the right to their views and opinions but if you do not agree than you are racist or a
Why is it, that people’s feelings seem to be more important than free speech in today’s society? Is “hate speech” not covered by free speech? this frightening trend present in society – the idea that words cause harm, and should therefore be limited.
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...
Freedom of speech has been the core principle we have fought long and hard for centuries to achieve. It is the fundamental reason why the founders seperated from England and started their own colonies on the idea of becoming free. In recent times the idea of freedom of speech has been put into question as there has been incidents for years of racism, religious differences and discriminatory abuse. What comes into question is what exactly is your freedom of speech rights and what should be and should not be said in the public eye. The problems that we see arising in today’s society is discrimination and abuse against one another for opposing views and what exactly should your freedom of speech rights entail to as many hate crimes have occurred