“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too,” said by Voltaire, a French Enlightenment philosopher. This idea later influenced the First Amendment of the Declaration of Independence, which lists the five freedoms granted to citizens. One of them being freedom of speech is a fundamental component of a living and breathing democracy. With the recent issues regarding free speech, many have called into question whether or not it is a truly beneficial freedom. First and foremost, writers and artists that take advantage of free speech must be ones to consider the consequences from the varying levels of offense that can be evoked in an audience. Even so, they should not be the ones to hold their opinions back. Every opinion, …show more content…
There wouldn’t be a problem if a controversial opinion never made it to the public in the first place. This perspective is simplistic at best, but can also be the most effective of avoiding catastrophic events such as the recent Charlie Hebdo controversy. In any given situation, you can avoid conflict by leaving things as is and by withholding any opinion. However, by holding themselves back, artists and writers defeat the purpose of expressing difficult subjects. It creates a void in communicating information in war-like situations and in general. It is certain that you will come across an opinion that you don’t particularly like or find insulting. This is the cost for freedom of speech; it is given to all and must be expected that censorship isn’t an option. Once you begin censoring in a democratic society for the sake of protecting others from any offenses, you are basically losing the focal point of this freedom. It’s how we find the truth; its how we allow ourselves to understand differing perspectives and be a better democracy. “Maybe the greatest value of freedom of speech is that it lets people better understand the world they actually live in.” (Lukianoff). So no, artists and writers should not hold themselves
Clear and Danger was evaluated in the First Amendment and guarantees the right of Freedom of Speech. I have two scenarios regarding clear and danger, the first scenario is Debs v United States. In this case Debs v United States, Debs felt that socialism is the answer; however, Deb’s was prosecuted for the remarks that he made. In addition, the speech that Deb gave wasn’t as harsh as made by others, for example, George McGovern made a remark about the Viet Nam War during his 1972 presidential bid which was very harsh. This process was done by using its weak form of the clear-and-present-danger test and Deb’s ended up being sentenced to a ten year sentence. In this case Deb’s couldn’t speak everything on his mind that he wanted which was a violation
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.
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.
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:
If this were the case, freedom of expression could not exist at all because someone is always going to be offended by what another person says. Possessing freedom of expression means being tolerant and accepting of others who have differing opinions, or even offensive ones. This might not always be easy, but is what one has to deal with in order to voice their own voice and opinions. Accepting and tolerating others does not mean that one has to agree with them. Every individual is given the liberty to exercise their right to free speech.
In the essays, “In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected” by Jonathan Rauch and “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims” by Charles R. Lawrence III, the writers express their beliefs on the topic of freedom of speech and prejudice speech; particularly racist. As far as any benefits of prejudice speech go, the two writers thoroughly disagree. Lawrence believes that there are no benefits of prejudice speech and it should not be included in what America’s “freedom of speech” entails, because of its effect on minorities as he writes, “Whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the importance of maintaining societal tolerance for all unpopular speech, we are asking blacks and other subordinated groups to bear the burden for the good of all” (Lawrence 624.) Rauch disagrees as he suggests, “…the realistic question is how to make the best of prejudice, not how to eradicate it” (Rauch 1) as he thinks prejudice has benefits that effect not only our freedom of speech in general, but other things such as science and our ability “to challenge orthodoxy, think imaginatively, [and] experiment boldly” (Rauch 2.) Although the two writers disagree on the benefits, they do agree on some negative connotations of prejudice speech. Lawrence believes that there is real harm that can be inflicted upon a person when a victim of prejudice speech, of which is “…far from trivial” (Lawrence 623.) Rauch similarly agrees as he views the prejudice speech to be effecting to the inner body and the soul as he notes, “All of these things are noted preverbally and assessed by the gut” and that “The fear engendered by these words is real” (Rauch 6.) However, Rauc...
freedom of speech; it is liberty of expression and the artist's right to the pursuit of happiness.
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...
The Free Speech Movement protested the ban of on campus political activities and speeches. Thousands of students became involved in this protest and together they displayed how much power there was in student activism. In the fall of 1964, the Regents of the university enforced a new ban that blocked students from holding political activities at Sproul Plaza on Bancroft and Telegraph. This was unsettling to them because the Bancroft Strip was a key location that students occupied when trying to reach out, raise funds and speak up for what they believed in. Previous policies suggested that student life outside of the university wouldn't be tampered or interfered with, so this was an outrage to the students of UC Berkeley. When the regents took time to revise and tweak the ban, students were still unhappy with the decision, so a sit in at Sproul Hall was organized and it lasted for nearly 10 hours.
The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, which gradually merges into the modern perspective of the public throughout the history and present. The restriction over the cable TV and broadcast media subjected by the Federal Communications Commission violates the freedom of speech, irritating the dissatisfied public by controlling over what can be said on the air. Should the FCC interfere with the free speech of media? The discretion of content being presented to the public should not be completely determined by the FCC, but the public in its entirety which enforces a self-regulation with freedom and justice, upholding and emphasizing the freedom of speech by abolishing the hindrance the FCC brought.
It is not the end of the world to have a different opinion than someone else, and each person has the liberty to exercise their right to speech and opinion. Freedom of speech enables a search for truth and answer, and no other system gets people as close to such. One-sided conversation without feedback or debate is pointless and accomplishes nothing. "It is indispensable that there should exist the freedom
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.
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
First of all, what does Freedom of Speech mean to people? According to some, it is the