Often time’s people believe that the first amendment protects all speeches that are being said. It is easy to get confused with what is protected in free speech in the first amendment and what are the regulations with what can be said in public. Some people will make rude comments or remarks of a person’s nationality or religion, which is protected by the first amendment; but some may consider it hate speech. The first amendment states 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. Hate speeches that targets a specific …show more content…
This sounds quite similar another big issue in our society today and that is bullying. Bullying by the definition of the dictionary is the use of superior strength or influence to intimidate someone. Hate speech is a form of bullying because they are both hurting a person emotionally and verbally. Hate speech can lead people to depression or self-harming themselves. In “Hate Speech Should Be Regulated” Laura Leets states, “The U.S. Supreme Court has traditionally viewed speech effects in terms of short- term, deterministic consequences, and has not considered more far- reaching effects.” though people won’t start self- harming themselves just from one hate speech; but with constant hate speeches from people it will start to affect the person. Hate speech should be taken more seriously in the area of hurting people emotionally because hurting a person emotionally is far more affective than physically. When you hurt someone physically the wound and pain will go away after a while but when is emotionally it stays in someone’s mind for a long period of time and sometimes-even forever. In Ronald Eissens article “Hate Speech on the Internet Should be Regulated” he notes, “[T]he Constitution of the United States… does much quoted by freedom of speech advocates, does recognize situations in which hate speech can be harmful and should be illegal.” If hate …show more content…
People would exaggerate a religion’s belief and shape it until it sounds bad to people so they can hate it. Some people might humiliate some other culture that doesn’t believe in the same things as they do; because of this they would say something to discriminate them. In Eissens’ article “Hate Speech on the Internet Should Be Regulated” he states “ Hate has consequences that go further than violence and murder; hate disrupts society…” people spread lies about a religion and other people in our society are going to go around thinking that it is true; those people will probably hate that religion for that false accusation. It will end up in a domino effect, one person telling another until everyone knows about it and in the end that religion will be shut out by society because of that one lie someone has told. People really need to think about what they say because if that group tries to retaliate and do something physical to get back at them, they will try to use the first amendment to save themselves from getting in trouble. The first amendment should not be able to save them from saying those lies because they have hurt a lot people with the lies they have
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.
In the first amendment, it is stated that all people have the Freedom of speech, religion,
The First (1st) Amendment of the United States (U.S.) Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791, “guarantees to all Americans regardless of age, ethnicity, disability, faith, or gender, the freedom of speech, freedom of press, the right to assemble, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition Congress (Government) for a redress of grievances” (Kanovitz, 2010). However, as these types of speech are protected by the 1st Amendment, there are other kinds of speech that are not. The framers of the 1st Amendment intended for this amendment to be broad as to allow the amendment room to adapt to future changes in societal diversities as we live today (Kanovitz, 2010). In these protected rights are solid foundations that secures the opportunity to openly share ideas, thoughts, and various differences in points of view, encouraging interaction...
Being expression one of the most important rights of the people to maintain a connected society right to speech should be accepted to do so. The first amendment is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals have. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. This amendment describes the principal rights of the citizens of the United States. If the citizens were unable to criticize the government, it would be impossible to regulate order. By looking freedom of speech there is also freedom of assembly and freedom of press that are crucial for the United States democracy.
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
When the individual gets attacked verbally because of their controversial statements, they claim that they had the right to speak their mind no matter how disturbing their words were. They use the First Amendment as a cover for their wrong-doings, and that is never okay. They need to be educated on what they can and cannot say. Just because the First Amendment guarantees a person the freedom of speech, does not mean that they are entitled to say whatever they please. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains if an individual were to use “fighting words” then they are automatically not covered under their First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “fighting words” were not constitutional, so they would not be protected under the First Amendment (2). Many people misunderstand that much of their opinions that they speak consists of words that are unclear. More than half of the time the words they use in their statements are considered to be fighting words, for they are rude and ignorant. There is no need for the obscene words that they use to be protected under the First Amendment. They must become aware of their lack of knowledge for what “fighting words” are; furthermore, they
Living in the United States we enjoy many wonderful freedoms and liberties. Even though most of these freedoms seem innate to our lives, most have been earned though sacrifice and hard work. Out of all of our rights, freedom of speech is perhaps our most cherished, and one of the most controversial. Hate speech is one of the prices we all endure to ensure our speech stays free. But with hate speeches becoming increasingly common, many wonder if it is too great of a price to pay, or one that we should have to pay at all.
In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse and violence directed at people of color, lesbians, and gay men, and other historically persecuted groups has plagued the United States. Among the settings of these expressions of intolerance are college and university campuses, where bias incidents have occurred sporadically since the mid-1980's. Outrage, indignation and demands for change are the responses to these incidents - understandably, given the lack of racial and social diversity among students, faculty and administrators on most campuses. Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or olicies prhibiting speech that offends any group based on race gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.
On December 15, 1791, the first amendment- along with the rest of the Bill of Rights- was passed by congress. Although the amendment allows verbal freedom to the citizens of America, many argue that it also comes with great risks.The possibility of both mental and physical harm to citizens through the practice of free speech should be taken into consideration. Limiting free speech has potentially saved lives by monitoring what a person can or can not say that could cause distress to the public (e.g.- yelling “bomb” on an airplane). Others argue that the limitation of free speech will hinder our progress as a nation, and could potentially lead to our downfall through governmental corruption. In a society where the freedom of speech is a reality, one must question the risks and limits of that right.
The First Amendment states, "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." Essentially, the First Amendment is supposed to give citizens the right to have free speech, free choice of religion, and the right to assemble peaceably. There are limitations to the First Amendment because every person interprets the rights differently. The Nazis most likely assumed that it was all right to hate people and say it in public, but the Jewish people disagreed, believing that hatred is unacceptable. Where is the line drawn when it comes to people being able to speak their minds? Justice Murphy, a member of the Supreme Court in 1942, had a say on what is considered allowable under the First Amendment and what crosses the line, and he stated,
Freedom of Speech means that everyone is entitled to having an opinion , and they are able to share this opinion in any way that they would like to - online on Facebook, in public on a street corner, or even just in a face-to-face conversation with someone else. There are many different kinds of people, all with their own opinions, beliefs, and ideas and in the United states, citizens are fortunate enough to be able to share these thoughts with anybody they want to, without fear of major repercussions.
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, Rauch does also slightly agree with the implications of prejudice speech as he does not view the damage of hateful words as even comparable to the act of real physical and loathsome violence.... ... middle of paper ...
Our textbook clearly says that, “everyone has the right to an opinion – even if it is a horrible opinion. We can punish criminal behavior. We should never punish people for simply expressing their views.” The First Amendment made it possible for people to voice their opinion whether it be hurtful or not.
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
Topic: Do you believe that free speech as proscribed under the first amendment of the constitution should be limited?