Freedom Of Speech

1634 Words4 Pages

The First Amendment reads: “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” (U.S. Const. amend. I). However, nothing in this world is completely “free”, including free speech. Having free speech comes with limitations in order to prevent harm or setbacks to interests. These limits, however, must have a high bar to reach otherwise the government would be taking the “freedom” out of free speech and expression. Unfortunately, hate speech, while highly discouraged, should not be a restriction within the limits of freedom of …show more content…

The offense principle “requires that the disliked state of mind be produced wrongfully by another party” (Feinberg, p. 2). This also means that it is a necessary condition that there be a wrong, not necessarily that the victim feels wronged (Feinberg, p. 2) Feinberg believes that the offense principle is necessary in order to guide the limitations of free speech (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Even Mill believed that there are some acts that if done publicly from the category of offenses against others, should rightly be prohibited (Mill, p. 97). Feinberg’s principle, like Mills, recommends limited intervention when it comes to free speech, however, his principle allows for more reach than the harm principle. In Feinberg’s opinion, “all forms of speech that are found to be offensive, but easily avoidable should go unpunished” and those offenses that are punished should be done less severely since offending is less serious than harming is (p. 160). For example, Feinberg states that books or movies should never be banned for offensive material since both can easily be avoided (Stanford Encyclopedia of

More about Freedom Of Speech

Open Document