Protection of the Commercial Use of Free Speech
If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that
government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society
finds the idea morally offensive or disagreeable."
It is because I believe these words by Justice Brennan, I stand for the
negation of today's resolution, that "When they Conflict, Respect for.......
Cultural Sensitivity Ought To Be Valued Above Commercial Use of Free Speech."
My value for today's debate is that of Free expression, which I will define
as the freedom to express our thoughts, ideas, and beliefs, freely and openly,
without restraint. My criteria is the degree to which free speech is allowed in the
business environment.
I have three contentions to support my value of Free Expression, and to
negate the resolution. My first contention is, It is virtually impossible to avoid
offending someone's culture in our multi-cultural society. Second, Freedom of
speech is based on our valuing the autonomy of individuals to make informed
decisions. My third contention is that there is no moral responsibility of the
commercial media to suppress certain speech because it violates some cultural
sensitivity.
My first contention is It is virtually impossible to avoid offending someone's
culture in our multi-cultural society. As Edward J. Eberle states, "One man's
vulgarity, is another man's lyric.". The concept of cultural sensitivity is too vague
a concept to be enforced. One can intend no offense, and yet offense can be
taken. How many people must be offended before it constitutes cultural
insensitivity? In a country that will tolerate hate speeches by the Ku Klux Klan in
the name of free speech, it is unreasonable to limit the commercial use of free
speech because someone might be offended by a commercial. Let the
general public determine what is offensive and they will react with disfavor. If
the public felt strongly enough to boycott products and services because they
were offended by a company's advertising, that company will pull the add.
That is the American way, and it works.
My second contention is that, Freedom of speech is based on our valuing
the autonomy of individuals to make informed decisions. The resolution suggests
that it would be wise to remove certain types of information from the public-
those that violate the cultural sensitivity of some people. The resolution also
suggests that individual members of our culture are not capable of making
informed decisions on matters of cultural sensitivity. No one cultural outlook is so
privileged that it cannot or should not be included in the testing that occurs in
the marketplace of ideas.
The case, R. v. Keegstra, constructs a framework concerning whether the freedom of expression should be upheld in a democratic society, even wh...
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...
should be used as an expression of freedom and should not be overtly scrutinized as to what is
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...
Since this country was founded, we have had a set of unalienable rights that our constitution guarantees us to as Americans. One of the most important rights that is mentioned in our constitution is the right to free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
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.
Most people opposing restrictions on freedom of speech believe it will open doors that may threaten expression and lead to more extreme forms of censorship. What much of the opposition fails to realize is that our government has “drawn lines between protected and unprotected freedom of speech before without dire results” (Lawrence 64). When the abuse of one right threatens the preservation of another our government must pick their poison and decide which side calls for protection in each situation. This can be seen by ...
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.
People tend to exploit their rights, just by hurting someone’s feelings or dignity as Waldron said in his book (Harm in Hate Speech, 2012). Sometimes the message that has been conveyed is not what is actually intended to be said. But what comes out of someone’s mouth couldn’t be taken back. There are times when people don’t care if they are being offensive because either they don’t know that it might hurt the feelings of others or they have full intension of using their rights in a way that would cause mental stress for others.
Statements can be made in a variety of manners, and some of these are seen to be acceptable while others impose on the Harm and Offence Principles. As an example, imagine a group of individuals peacefully handing out fliers in a sanctuary city that reference the fact that illegal are taking their jobs, and now compare that to a group of individuals rioting with torches and pitchforks in a sanctuary city about how illegal immigrants are taking their jobs. The manner in which the views are expressed when holding weapons is far more violent than when using fliers, can be seen to fall in the category of instigation because of the threat the weapons they have
Free speech on college campuses has been a heavily debated topic in academia and in recent years it has made a comeback. There are many perspectives to the restriction and allowance of free speech. From the past court cases the rulings decided student’s speech can be punished if it disrupts school, is indecent, and if it is associated with the school. (Ross 176). However, this was in the case of high school students and during that time the court had ruled that there is a difference between a high school environment and a university environment. “In 1981, the Court declined to protect university students from religious messages because university students are young adults who are ‘less impressionable than younger students’” (Ross 176). Not
If we were to limit which forms of "expression" should be allowed, we would not only be doing ourselves an injustice, we would also be setting ourselves up for an eventual demise and a disintegration of our values and beliefs. The freedom of speech and expression allows everyone a chance to be able to express and experiment. The very nature of our country rests upon our ability to be able to express ourselves in new and inventive ways. If we were to limit this ability, then production values of what our minds can conceive of are greatly reduced.
There cannot be too much free speech, the more the better. Everyone everywhere should always have the right to say whatever they want. People should also be allowed to argue with people whose opinions the dislike. People can stop talking to someone who they consider offensive, they can walk away. Words don’t hurt people, despite the current popular opinion. Free speech should not be limited by anything it should just be free. Some people will say horrible things, but when they say such things to other people, people will think that they are horrible, and not listen to them anymore. Laws against saying certain thing don’t protect anyone, all they do is hide the true nature of people, until it is too late to do
The Bill of Rights has gained existence since December 15, 1791. Being supported mainly by anti-federalists, the Bill of Rights upheld what was needed to protect individual liberty. From the ratification we have our first ten amendments. The most important and used today is the first amendment. The amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting… petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This amendment is very powerful but cannot be overly abused. Over time the freedom of speech has been constricted. There are many court cases that display the limitation of free speech. Environmental factors and certain materials are not covered in free speech. To understand our rights and know how and when our rights are limited, we must
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.