More handpicked essays just for you.
A discussion of freedom of expression
A discussion of freedom of expression
A discussion of freedom of expression
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In considering freedom of expression and where to limit it, a careful balance needs to be struck. Too forceful limits on expression can lead to autocratic governments that jail dissident citizens and force its citizens to hide away original thoughts. Yet, laws that give a hall pass to all speech that does not present imminent danger merely allows hate groups to flourish and sow their ideals. True democracy ensures each person is allowed an equal say, regardless of any physical, mental, or personal trait. In achieving an equal say, all citizens must feel as if they are able to freely express their ideas without a possibility of being oppressed, either by the government or other citizens. This paper will present arguments both for and against freedom of expression when developing democratic systems, and confer an examination of the difficulty in
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit advocacy group for civil rights, currently lists 892 different hate groups operating within the US. As these groups expand and espouse their hate, their thoughts and ideas spread throughout the American populace. Currently leading the US GOP Presidential Primary race is a racist, xenophobic, bigot who is proposing that the US ban muslims and limit their ability to worship in groups or live without being watched. How is allowing him to shout these beliefs on a national platform conducive to furthering America as a country? Are the freedoms of Muslim-Americans not being trampled on by saying they would not be allowed to freely assemble in mosques or visit their family members overseas? Because the US has chosen to continually uphold hate speech laws that require an imminent danger threat, swaths of US citizens are having their freedoms limited by other
Allowing freedom of expression to everyone was not an easy step to take, because some thought that depending on someone's colour, and or race their opinion did not matter. The beginning steps began with the expression of religion allowing everyone to practise their religion in peace, with reasonable limits, soon all colours around the country were expressing their opinions to problems that took place in their society, and government. This human right may easily be more important than the other human right, saving lives from discrimination, and hate. The near future looks well organized as “freedom of expression” is passed on and used by everyone, prevents arguments due to the fact that everyone has a say, not considering one's class. Freedom of expressions is a fundamental right, which in most times is greatly used over all the other human rights. The right to speak plays a vital role in the healthy development of any society, without it the rich become richer, and the poor become more poor. The days of that have passed, now freedom of expression has moved on from Canada, and travels around the world to countries, where people are put to work against their will. The change will be drastic for the better and freedom of expression provides importance for the other human rights in the near
Freedom of expression can sometimes be abused by saying hateful things, however overall it is positive and beneficial. It allows people to be themselves and have a voice, it promotes thinking and new ideas, it allows for peaceful conflict, it motivates people to make changes, and many other things. As one can see, freedom of expression is one of the main foundations of this country, and is tremendously beneficial to the people in, making Rosenblatt’s argument potent and
Entrenched within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lies the fundamental rights that Canadian citizens share. The primary freedoms recognized within Section 2 of the Charter, such as the freedom of speech and expression, are necessary for a free and democratic society. Yet, a crucial conflict of rights exists within the system when the freedom of expression is used to perpetuate willful hatred against a certain individual or group. Controversy arises from this conflict first and foremost because the freedom of expression is meant to secure each person the right to express ideas and opinions without governmental interference, irrespective of what that opinion may be. In this paper, I will discuss the conflicting views of restricting the freedom of expression when it is used to promote hatred. I refer to the insights offered by Joel Feinberg and Joseph Raz to advance the view that the “right” to freedom of expression is not final and absolute, as expressions of hated do in fact cause real harm to people, and there rights too must be taken into consideration. Fundamental rights should be viewed as a privilege, which includes a responsibility to respect and value the rights of others to provide for a truly liberal democracy. I will refer to the landmark judicial decision in the Canadian Supreme Court case of R. v. Keegstra to argue that the rights of individuals and groups to be afforded the right to respect and dignity outweigh any claim to freedom of expression.
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.
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...
The Amendment I of the Bill of Rights is often called “the freedom of speech.” It provides a multitude of freedoms: of religion, of speech, of the press, to peacefully assemble, to petition the government. Religious freedom is vitally important to this day because it eliminates the problem of religious conflicts. Historically, many people died for their beliefs because their government only allowed and permitted one religion. T...
The article ¨Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” delineates when Salman Rushdie published his novel that consisted of many unfair statements about Muslims, there were many violent protests around the world as an outcome (1). Rushdie, the author of the very controversial novel, pleaded that the First Amendment protected his writings, but this is invalid. His writings caused riots that turned to be extremely violent where many people got hurt; furthermore, since his words caused this chaos, he is no longer protected. The Constitution does not provide any statements that prove that these people who start riots are to be protected under their rights. The American people must wake up and realize that their ignorant actions are not protected; moreover, their actions are their responsibility. They chose to speak their mind, so they must have to own up to the repercussions that follow. If a person is responsible for causing a riot that ends in many injuries, or even death, they should not be able to claim that the First Amendment protects their violations. The article continues with if a person were to stand up in front of a large or small crowd and purposely speak of topics that would begin a riot, they would not be protected under the First Amendment (1). Many individuals are unaware that as soon as they begin speaking of controversial topics, and purposely
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 fundamental purpose of the first amendment was to guarantee the maintenance of an effective system of free speech and expression. This calls for an examination of the various elements which are necessary to support such a system in a modem democratic society. Some of these elements found early articulation in the classic theory of free expression, as it developed over the course of centuries; others are the outgrowth of contemporary conditions. More specifically, it is necessary to analyze what it is that the first amendment attempts to maintain: the function of freedom of expression in a democratic society; what the practical difficulties are in maintaining such a system: the dynamic forces at work in any governmental attempt to restrict or regulate expression; and the role of law and legal institutions in developing and supporting freedom of expression. These three elements are the basic components of any comprehensive theory of the first amendment viewed as a guarantee of a system of free expression.
Freedom of speech is important part of the United States society. Yes, hate speech is harm to society, but also limit speech. Free speech has long been a debate about regulating it and protects it. People say awful things about other people and the government. The states, companies, and colleges have tried to punish or limit hate speech. Unfortunately, they have been unsuccessful in their effect. When the government starts regulating on free speech the people are giving up a powerful tool but the other hand hate speech violate other people liberties. As individuals are allow to speak hateful words and tried to attack a particular group people have the right encounter with positive words. Both side of argument will be allow express their without being
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
In society the topic of free speech comes up very frequently. One side will argue that there should be no limit on what someone wants to say, while others believe that the idea on full free speech is dangerous and should be restricted. In a video that was presented to us there was a debate that conquered this topic on why or why not this should be allowed. This topic of free speech has gone on for decades and continues to be a fight on whether it should be limited.
...lim violence mentioned in class lectures include a taxi cab driver in NYC who identified himself as a Muslim and was shot dead by the passenger, four pieces of construction equipment was destroyed at a future mosque site in Tennessee also in Tennessee, a pipe bomb went off in a mosque in Jacksonville killing somewhere around 60 people. This is only a few example of the many hate crimes committed against Muslims in the United States. Muslims not only face hate crimes in the U.S., but all over the world today which is particularly disturbing in the U.S. which has a Constitution that states all citizens are free to practice their own religion, but clearly as of late, this is not true for Muslim Americans.
Freedom of speech has many positive things, one of which is the help it gives on decision-making. Thanks to freedom of speech it is possible to express personal ideas without fear or restraints; therefore, all the perspectives and options will be on the table, giving people more opportunities to choose from. Nevertheless, everything in life has a limit, and the limit of freedom of speech depends directly on the consideration of the rights of others. People is free of believing what they want, thinking what they want, and even saying what they want, everything as long as they do not intrude or violate anyone else's rights. Under certain circumstances freedom of speech should be limited, and this is more than just a political action, this acts represent the urge for tolerance and the need for respect.