As part of the constitution that states the rights of individuals in United States, in the “Bill of Rights”, or the first ten amendments, the first amendment claims and prohibits the Congress from hindering individuals to exercise their freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition. In the article The Hell You Say by Kelefa Sanneh, there was a debate about what is free speech and who has the power to control free speech. The article asked the question “who is censoring whom?” to the readers to engage them and actively think about the topic. Although, the article claimed that “Free speech can be harmful, and its defenders should be willing to say so”, it did not clearly indicate any pros or cons of any side the reader …show more content…
These laws claimed that we have the rights to express ourselves as long as it does not present danger or “incite ’imminent lawless action’.” An article from New York Times, From ‘Je Suis Charlie’ to Attacks on free Speech, discussed about the “Je Suis Charlie” attack that happened last year and its aftermath. It talks about how it became a rally across Europe in support of free speech and freedom of expression. The rally started when the European nation showed that they seemed to be willing to “curtail those same freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism.” The article supported the idea that individual’s free speech should not be hindered and claimed that “what is foolish is the rush to exploit fear and crisis to suppress the freedoms that define democracy… There is no question that terrorism requires a robust response, but it cannot be used as justification for arbitrary and unfair laws.” The government may think it is the best route to constrain people’s free speech but this might create more danger for it will lead to more miscommunications and misunderstandings. People will not be able to voice out their opinions and beliefs to express themselves and stand against other people who puts them down. Constraining people’s free speech is like sewing their lips together in order to torture and for them to be not able to say
Through government censorship, many religious, and nonreligious, activities have been stopped, disrupted, and insulted throughout the years. In fact, it is not just government that do this. Many people tend to be bothered by such activities and also work towards stopping and/or disrupting them. "'We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought'” (Bradbury 59) This quote from the text is when Beatty explains to Montag the importance of firemen. This quote helps to show how in a dystopian government, there are people who interrupt others activities to maintain “order”. In 2016, a youtuber by the name of Adam Saleh was kicked off a plane for speaking in a different language. “I am upset that that’s happening, really upset,” the passenger said. “‘Is there freedom of speech? They can speak in whatever language they want to on the plane.’” “‘In the video, as Saleh panned the camera around the plane cabin, a few passengers waved. Several could be heard shouting: ‘Bye!’” (Wang, Amy “YouTube star known for pranks claims he was kicked off Delta flight for speaking Arabic”) These quotes from an article describe how while some believe that people deserve freedoms, others may disagree. Because of this, those with more power (in this case a greater majority) get the unfair
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.
The case, R. v. Keegstra, constructs a framework concerning whether the freedom of expression should be upheld in a democratic society, even wh...
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.
The First Amendment 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 of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (First Amendment Oct. 20, 2013). But "the First Amendment does not protect all speech from government censorship, and it does not prevent private non-government entities from censoring. Years of US Supreme Court decisions have identified exceptions to the general rule that the governments in the United States cannot censor" (Censorship Copyright © 2002). American citizen's right of freedom of speech should be held in the highest integrity and any kind of censorship of free speech should not be allowed because it take away those rights. However, censorship has been going on for centuries.
The First Amendment protects our rights of free speech and assembly, the independence of the press, and prohibits official establishment or unfair criticism of any particular religion. Free speech rights can be thought of as having two parts, the right to have free access to ideas, and the right to express ideas freely. The right to calm assembly goes with free speech given that demonstrations and other political activity are protected as expressive behavior. While government actions threaten all these rights stated by the First Amendment, it is our free speech and assembly rights which are most at risk. The USA PATRIOT Act contains provisions that will criminalize people's legitimate expressions of their political views. For example, the Act creates a new category of crime; domestic terrorism blurs the line between speech and criminal activity. Section 802 of the Act defines domestic terrorism as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal laws" that "appear to be inten...
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...
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
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 Constitution is the highest form law in America. The laws within are rarely contested, however, censorship tends to impede on this pattern. The First Amendment of the Constitution states,” Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech. or of the press…”(Charters), meaning there cannot be any laws enacted that will interfere with an individuals’ freedom of speech or press. Yet, this is exactly what censorship in all forms works to do. When censorship blocks out certain phrases from a book, or banning an entire book all together, it is going against the constitution, as both the author and reader have the right to say and speak their mind. In response to the heavy crackdown on censorship as of late, man...
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...
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. Censorship allows governments more control of society than they already have, slowly progressing governments utilizing censorship to a dictatorship. Often times, this censorship can lead to immense rebellions.
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