What is freedom of speech? Some will say it is a right to Americans given by the First amendment, some will say it is a right which allows us to say and expresses anything we want. Everything is true. Yes, right of freedom of speech is given by the government to the people allowing them to say and express what they want. But do you really think that we are that “free” to say and do anything we want? I don’t think so. Government is placing limits on right of ours. They are telling us what you should or should not say or do. But do you think it is justifiable? I think it is necessary to put some limits on rights like these. The people who cannot agree with me answer this- If a robber robs the bank or some random person stands up and curses some particular culture or person, is that acceptable for you? Robber has right to express whatever he wants. By robbing he is just expressing that he wants the money that does not belong to him. That is his right. The person can curse anyone since that is his right. Imagine you are sitting in your classroom and someone comes up yelling about the bomb threat? What would you do? You will run for your life only to find out that it was a false alarm. What would you do to that person who spread those words? Oh you can’t do anything since he has right to say …show more content…
whatever he wants. Do you see the problem here? If government does not take actions against these types of problems this right can be proven as our worst enemy. Anyone can insult anyone, curse anyone, kill or rape anyone. Like this the society as will be in adverse situations. So there has to be some limits. That doesn’t make you not “free” to speak as you will, but you just have to put some thought in what you speak and respect to others when you speak because of this limits. Here is another example why there should be limit on what we speak. Given the example of Schenck Vs.
United States case law. In this case Defendant Schenck mailed pamphlets to the forces fighting in World War I protesting against the draft system. He was charged with violation of Espionage Act. But he made the point that this Act violated his freedom of speech. Technically speaking, Yes It did violate his right to free speech. But wasn’t that necessary? Those pamphlets can make disturbance to those who are fighting and saving their country in the war. That type of disturbance can be proven very harmful to the nation. So for the sake of the nation they had to make that law so things like that cannot occur, jeopardizing security of the whole
nation. Yes, you can oppose if you don’t like the certain law. But not after you get arrested for violating that law. You can simply file a petition to change the law and if it is legit they can change it. So it is not like the government snatches your freedom from you. It is just limited for your own good. If there were no limits and law, the nation is no better than a jungle.
The Schenck case in the early 1900s dealt with the freedom of speech as it related to the draft of World War I. Charles Schenck sent mass mail that stated “the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system” (Schenck v. United States). The federal government found this to be in violation of the Clear and Present Danger Test as well as the Espionage Act and arrested Schenck for his actions. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court and was ruled in favor of the United States unanimously. The opinion of the court violates the free speech clause as well as a right to have peaceful protest by denying Schenck to share his opinions of the draft with others despite the opinion of the government on this action.
Do you know that notifying your fellow Americans of their constitutional rights was a Federal crime? Well it was during World War One (WWI). In the case Schenck v. the United States, schenck tried to remind his fellow Americans of their constitutional rights and also let them know that the draft was being used as a form of militarized slavery. This case contained men who his right was taken away after he tried to get the military draftees to fight against the draft. However Congress took his right of speech away when it was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917.
Schenek v. United States was a trial in 1919 that reaffirmed the conviction of a man for circulating antidraft leaflets among members of the armed forces. This trial upheld the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which by many deemed unconstitutional. The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law, which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. The Sedition Act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime. These two laws denied the freedom of speech that our sacred Bill of Rights was supposed to uphold. The antidraft flyers that Schenek passed out claimed to be freedom of speech so the government could not stop the circulation of Schenek’s pamphlets. However, by passing out antidraft laws, Schenek had “the intent to interfere with the operation of success of the armed forces of the United States.” By doing this, he broke the law. He was sentenced to six months in prison for breaking an unconstitutional law. The government was trying to reduce the freedom of speech during a time of war so that the nation would be united as one. The opposition of some feared Woodrow Wilson and his cabinet so they took action by reducing some freedoms and imprisoning many people unconstitutionally.
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.
Grabber: Do we still have the freedom speech or has the internet changed the meaning of free 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:
“Fag burns.” “DIE.” These slurs were scrawled outside the GLBT office at N.C. State last October. Should the instigator be indicted for hate speech in addition to vandalism? Was this expression an act of hate speech? Or was it free speech? Is the message he conveyed protected under the First Amendment? Two and a half centuries ago, the nation’s forefathers drafted the Constitution of the United States. The aim of the Constitution is to protect the values that this nation was built upon. This document, arguably one of the nation’s most important, encompasses values such as democracy, equality, religious tolerance, as well as the freedom of speech.
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.
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
Separation of church and state is an issue in the forefront of people’s minds as some fight for their religious freedoms while others fight for their right to not be subjected to the religious beliefs of anybody else. Because public schools are government agencies they must operate under the same guidelines as any other government entity when it comes to religious expression and support, meaning they cannot endorse any specific religion nor can they encourage or require any religious practice. This issue becomes complicated when students exercise their right to free speech by expressing their religious beliefs in a school setting. An examination of First Amendment legal issues that arise when a student submits an essay and drawing of a religious
Total freedom does not exist. Being American has made some people believe that they have the freedom to do whatever they want, but this isn’t the case. In this day and age students are free to use texting, social media, and they also have access to various other things on the internet. Some students use these resources responsibly and do not abuse these methods, but on the other hand some students use these resources immaturely and usually cause great dilemmas that can extend to their school life. Consequently, schools should be allowed to limit students’ online speech because cyberbullying can cause widespread problems among both students and teachers, it disrupts learning, and it violates students’ civil rights.
Freedom of expression is an inalienable human right and the foundation for self-government. Freedom of expression defines the freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and the corollary right to receive information. Human rights and intellectual independence; the two are inseparably linked. Freedom of opinion and determining what you want to read is not
Statements can be made in a variety of manners, and some of these are seen to be acceptable while others impose on the Harm and Offence Principles. As an example, imagine a group of individuals peacefully handing out fliers in a sanctuary city that reference the fact that illegal are taking their jobs, and now compare that to a group of individuals rioting with torches and pitchforks in a sanctuary city about how illegal immigrants are taking their jobs. The manner in which the views are expressed when holding weapons is far more violent than when using fliers, can be seen to fall in the category of instigation because of the threat the weapons they have
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...
Now this can be overruled depending upon the situation. For example you may lose your free speech if you walk into a public establishment and start shouting “BOMB”! It is times like these when individuals temporarily lose their freedom