Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Freedom of speech and what it entails america
Freedom of speech and what it entails america
Freedom of speech and what it entails america
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Freedom of speech and what it entails america
A Burmese comedian by the name of Zarganar was sentenced to 35 years for violating the Electronics Acts in 2008. Afterwards, Zarganar received an additional 14 years for supporting destructive acts against the state. Even though he was arrested and sentenced for violating the Electronics Acts and Video Acts, his only real crime was openly criticizing the Burmese government's handling of a past incident (Farrington 66). The Burmese government and others like it are the types of governments our nation's founders separated from and protested against. America has recently began to resemble these governments, in the way it restricts people's freedom of expression. America has slowly strayed away from our forefathers' original ideas of freedom of speech. In order to truly be the land of the free, Americans must learn to tolerate the views of others instead of limiting them.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...ntinuously keeping people from saying what they want, the government is simply making them want to act out and speak out even more. To become a better nation or better citzens, we must learn to tolerate or accept the ideas of others no matter how absurd or profane they may be. No one has to agree with these ideas. Being able to tolerate the opinions of others leads to order and peace ( Tinder 44). For us to really be a free nation we must allow true free speech. “Order and peace are spontaneous and will tend to prevail wherever there is freedom” (Tinder 45).
Works Cited
Farrington, Julia. "Hear our voices." Index on censorship 42.2 (2013):66-69. Web. 11 November 2013.
Mintcheva, Svetlana. "Land of the free?." Index on censorship 42.2 (2013):70-73. Web. 11 November 2013.
Tinder, Glenn. Tolerance and Community. Columbia: University of Missouri press, 1995. Print.
Creating a safe space is more important for some rather than others. In “The Hell You Say” by Kelefa Sanneh for The New Yorker, he provides an interesting look at the views of Americans who support censorship of speech and those who are completely against it. Another issue I gathered from his article was that people use their right to free speech in wrong ways and end up harassing people. Providing two sides of a controversial debate, his article makes us think of which side we are on. So, whether or not censorship should be enforced; and how the argument for free speech is not always for the right reason, Sanneh explores this with 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”. 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.
"A Global History of Censorship." Guarding Public Morality: A Global History of Censorship. N p.g., 20 Mar. 2010. Web. 03 Nov. 2013.
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:
Free speech gives the government an opportunity to listen to what the people want in a peaceful manner. When taking a peaceful approach and creating an improved system, the likelihood of the government responding and making changes becomes
According to the “Derechos, Human Rights”, freedom of speech is one of the most dangerous rights, because it means the freedom to express one's discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. These types of rights are protected by ACLU and other type of organization like UNESCO. ACLU is “America’s nation's guardian of liberty”, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in America. Freedom of speech is a gift to human beings, without this right the people couldn’t express themselves or even worst, to say what they feel or want for a better life. United States is one of the countries that protect this right, but in the world there are governments that do not respect and do not know that this right exists. The relation between democratic government and freedom of speech is that they both depend in each other.
The United States of America is often known for having more freedom than anywhere else. As Gandhi said, “A ‘no’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better and greater than a ‘yes’ uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.” Freedom of speech is a big part of the American culture and citizens are encouraged to speak their minds and opinions openly. It is such an important aspect of each American individual that it is
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." -- Harry S Truman
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).
Freedom of speech is archetypally recognised as a basic human right in free and democratic societies. When contending whether speech that may be deemed offensive should be safeguarded one may refer to the judgement of Redmond-Bate v. DPP:
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
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.
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
“The U.S. and Britain have long thought of themselves as, above all, free countries. If that identity continues to atrophy, free speech will be the first victim. But it will not be the last.” [O'Sullivan, John]. Where O’Sullivan ends his article, “No Offense: The New Threats to Free Speech”, I can begin; countries who often pride themselves on their freedom, the U.S. especially, seem to be losing their grip on reality as their citizens lose their grip on free speech. O’Sullivan writes his article over the span of 1989 to 2014, in which he clearly illustrates the downward slope that these ‘great’ countries have been taking. He is right in his conclusion of atrophying countries, and more predominantly the disintegration of truly free speech.
As time goes on, it appears that the American people are slowly losing value of this freedom. It seems that “In our country we have [1] unspeakably precious [thing]: the freedom of speech and the prudence to never practice [it]” (Twain). Though the American people have been given the freedom of speech, they choose not to exercise it.This leads the government to attempt to censor this freedom “especially during times of national stress, like war abroad...” (ACLU). Since it is not evident that Americans value the freedom of speech, the government tests them to see how they will react. To see whether they will fight back. The point is that though the American people have been given the right to speak openly, they do not care to understand the usefulness of it, leading the government to test their resistance to the freedom of