Freedom Of Speech
Do you think swearing is right? Well everybody in the world does it either its addressing it to someone, threatening someone, or even just saying it for no reason. Freedom of speech is important because it gives a person a chance to express themselves freely without having to get in trouble or anything. People around the world listen to swearing almost everyday. There are sometimes that you can get in trouble for saying what you want (I.e. threatening someone for there life). If you were to threaten someone for there life, you will get arrested. But everyday you hear it in movies, places, music, and other media. This should be researched more because swearing is in a lot of media and sometimes they cut swears out. If adults didn’t want their children listening to that kind of music or watch that kind of show, they shouldn’t let their children watch it then. So technically we should be able to say what we want when we want. This essay will consist an emotional appeal, a logical appeal, and debunking the other argument of the first amendment. First will be an emotional appeal on the first amendment.
The first amendment helps people in plenty of different ways but also has affects to it. If this amendment wasn’t here or met, people may talk slower than what they do now because they would have to be careful to what they are saying. Also if this amendment wasn’t met, we would have less media because vulgar language is used in a lot of what we see and hear today. This fact helps my cause because people like to watch movies or go out to the movies as in a date. A lot of comedy comes from vulgar language, and people like comedy. If this amendment was cut, it would be harder for the writers of a show or movie to writ...
... middle of paper ...
...rld. But hearing his racist invective was shocking. Richards, a troubled man, has now been permanently banned from the Laugh Factory and probably from every comedy venue.
This essay has covered an emotional appeal, a logical appeal, and a debunking of the other argument of the first amendment. The emotional appeal of the first amendment is that people may talk slower than they usually do because they would have to watch out for what they say. The logical appeal of the first amendment is that media would be very different because the writers would have to be careful of what they want the actors to say. The debunking of the other argument of the first amendment is that you can get fired or get in major trouble for saying a threat or saying something racial. If this discussed matter is followed then it would be easier to write a movie, song, or any other type of media.
Throughout America, people place a high value in their freedom of speech. This right is protected by the first Amendment and practiced in communities throughout the country. However, a movement has recently gained momentum on college campuses calling for protection from words and ideas that may cause emotional discomfort. This movement is driven mainly by students who demand that speech be strictly monitored and punishments inflicted on individuals who cause even accidental offense. Greg Lukianoff and Johnathan Haidt discuss how this new trend affects the students mentally and socially in their article The Coddling of the American Mind published in The Atlantic Monthly. Lukianoff and Haidt mostly use logical reasoning and references to
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)
For more than 200 years, the First Amendment has been at the heart of United States’ history and most successful research in liberty. The history of America’s nation is the story of the constant struggle to extend the promise of freedom more fully and fairly to each and every citizen. By looking freedom of speech, democratic government is not that important to have it without these rights. People prefer democracy to avoid tyranny or suppression of others. The citizens of the United States need to protect these rights because they are fundamental to the human being to be free, have liberty. What Founding Fathers did is not enough, however, United States’ citizens has to work together for a better place, a better country, a better government.
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.
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.
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. The first amendment to the United State's constitution is one of the most important writings in our short history. The first amendment has defined and shaped our country into what it is today. The amendment has constantly been challenged and ratified through literature, court cases, and our media. In fact, media is driven by the first amendment. Without it, we as citizens wouldn't be able to view or listen to what we want, when we wanted. As you can see, the first amendment is not only a free pass to say and do what you want, but in contrast, a great limiter to certain types of speech and behavior. This duality of the amendment is what makes it so special. The duality is especially evident in the field of media. The media is constantly being challenged by the first amendment on the following topics:Defamation suits, obscenity and sex on the net, and free speech rights. It is those issues that are constantly changing and redefining our media today.
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
No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America. Within the last sixty years, American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression. When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism. Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history.
Kent Greenfield, in his article “The Limits of Free Speech,” questions whether the First Amendment is correctly interpreted. Greenfield’s purpose is to share different occasions with the readers, where the amendments true purpose is in question. He adopts a passionate yet indignant tone and uses different literary techniques such story-telling, an appeal to character, an informal voice and the use of repetition and rhetorical questions in order to display to the audience the true purpose of the First Amendment.
The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that we, as citizens, have the right to free speech. Our freedom, however, comes with responsibilities that must be respected in order to maintain independence in our country.
As a conclusion, people always wanted their voice to be heard but the situation around them didn’t let them speak their minds. In the past people have never questioned whether or not this rights should exist; now, in this era, the right to free speech is questioned more and more, and whether there should be limits or not. But placing limitations on the Freedom of Speech only attenuates society. Obscenity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Is it really unjust to eliminate certain words or phrases from one’s vocabulary for the sake of public indecency??? The freedom to express ourselves through spoken language is not a gift from the government, but a right to all of human race. But if the salvation of the humanity rests on the right to freely insult/blaspheme, then I can clearly see how hapless and pitiable we are to become!
On December 15, 1791, the first amendment- along with the rest of the Bill of Rights- was passed by congress. Although the amendment allows verbal freedom to the citizens of America, many argue that it also comes with great risks.The possibility of both mental and physical harm to citizens through the practice of free speech should be taken into consideration. Limiting free speech has potentially saved lives by monitoring what a person can or can not say that could cause distress to the public (e.g.- yelling “bomb” on an airplane). Others argue that the limitation of free speech will hinder our progress as a nation, and could potentially lead to our downfall through governmental corruption. In a society where the freedom of speech is a reality, one must question the risks and limits of that right.
The 1st Amendment application is extremely important in these situations in that it allows the government to stop and halt speech that could be extremely detrimental to the security of the United States or its people, which, in today’s world, could prove vital very soon.
This research question is significant due to the legal history it has and is the fundamental basis of the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution. The first amendment details the rights that U.S citizens have and includes their right to freedom of speech. This amendment affects court cases in regards to the kind of speech is considered to be legal and, if any, the kind of speech that would be considered illegal in the eyes of the government. The significance of what is being allowed to be said is based upon the interpretation of the law and is what gives the citizens their rights to speak or express their opinions. It is worth studying due to it being the rights the citizens of the U.S having as well as showing how the court system interprets the law. Also being on the Constitution, it signifies what rights citizens are guaranteed and is a reflection of how the court system works in modern times. This is important due to it outlining the rights that citizens in the United States have over what they can say and any violations that have occurred to their rights. The government's interpretation of the amendment also has to do with their rights and if they are truly following the rights given to the citizens or if there is a violation the interpretation of
Since the foundation of the United States after a harsh split from Britain, almost 200 years later, an issue that could claim the founding grounds for the country is now being challenged by educators, high-ranking officials, and other countries. Though it is being challenged, many libertarians, democrats, and free-speech thinkers hold the claim that censorship violates our so-called unalienable rights, as it has been proven throughout many court cases. Censorship in the United States is detrimental because it has drastically and negatively altered many significant events.