Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Privilege in our society
Interpretation of the 1st amendment
Privilege in our society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Privilege in our society
Freedom of Speech is possibly the most respected American ideal. Envied by citizens of countries where self-expression is a right of some and stricken from others, we uphold this concept with defensive pride. However, we must ask ourselves if this freedom can ever go too far. When does lenience turn into naivety? If speech is abused so freely that it enslaves the minds of another should it become a privilege, rather than a right? In his essay “On Racist Speech”, Charles R. Lawrence III argues for limitations on Freedom of Speech as described in the First Amendment to prevent only the most heinous racial remarks. While I understand why many Americans initially find limiting freedom of speech contradictory to the concept of our free states, Lawrence argues that we should “regulate harassing speech” when it infringes upon the -rights of another (61). To defend the First Amendment is important, but we must not forget the unalienable rights imparted upon us in the earlier Declaration of Independence. When a misapplication of our First Amendment rights inhibits any person’s ability to peacefully experience “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, restriction of speech is imperative to the preservation of equality. Most people opposing restrictions on freedom of speech believe it will open doors that may threaten expression and lead to more extreme forms of censorship. What much of the opposition fails to realize is that our government has “drawn lines between protected and unprotected freedom of speech before without dire results” (Lawrence 64). When the abuse of one right threatens the preservation of another our government must pick their poison and decide which side calls for protection in each situation. This can be seen by ... ... middle of paper ... ... of all civil liberties. If we continue to rally against the regulation of racial commentaries in places of education and employment, we are threatening the American dream of equal opportunity that brings reverence to the United States. It is time that we protect all groups and individuals equally from torment grounded in details as uncontrollable as gender or the color of their skin. Some speech must be contained to allow the unalienable right to a happy life to flourish without restriction. Works Cited Lawrence III, Charles R. “On Racist Speech.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions, 9th ed. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. Boston : New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011: 61-65. “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” EEOC.gov. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2011. Web. 09 Feb 2012. .
Lawrence understands that the government cannot regulate racist speech because people have the right to listen or ignore them. The people that choose to this do not see such acts as necessary because most feel it is only offensive when it going on in the home, Lawrence argues against that stating that the campus and universities. Lawrence feels as though in order to stop the racial and prejudice assault, the campuses and universities will have to set up regulations, in which they instill, it might lead up to racial violence are the students homes. The peoples misunderstanding of the First Amendment will always lead to confusing within such topics that goes against the First
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...
Racism Speech by Charles R. Lawrence In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons why racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and how he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue. On Racist Speech Charles Lawrence has been active in his use of the First Amendment rights since he was a young boy.
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.
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
Because it is a Constitutional right, the concept of freedom of speech is hardly ever questioned. “On its most basic level [freedom of speech] means you can express an opinion without fear of censorship by the government, even if that opinion is an unpopular one” (Landmark Cases). However, the actions of Americans that are included under “free speech,” are often questioned. Many people support the theory of “free speech,” but may oppose particular practices of free speech that personally offend them. This hypocrisy is illustrated by the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was protested by many, but ultimately successfully defended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The residents of this predominantly Jewish town which contained many Holocaust survivors were offended by the presence of the Neo-Nazis. However, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, who...
Freedom of expression can sometimes be abused by saying hateful things, however overall it is positive and beneficial. It allows people to be themselves and have a voice, it promotes thinking and new ideas, it allows for peaceful conflict, it motivates people to make changes, and many other things. As one can see, freedom of expression is one of the main foundations of this country, and is tremendously beneficial to the people in, making Rosenblatt’s argument potent and
This proof can be witnessed in how the author acknowledges America’s shunning of African American rights, equality must be acquired without animosity, and they will not stop fighting for what they never had: freedom. The famous speech is the most stimulating because of its figurative language and it’s in depth description of discrimination. As was said by Rosa Parks “Stand for something or you will fall for anything. Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that held its
Charles R. Lawrence III adresses the matter in his essay “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims,” by providing the perspective of those on the reciving end. He explains that “racial slurs are particularly undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetuator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialoge, but to injure the victim” (628). This argument is justified because some people do take their freedom of speech as far as offending someone because of their race, cultural, and social beliefs. As Cinnamon Stillwell proved in her essay, “Mob Rule on College Campuses,” some students do become bullies when their beliefs are challenged. Stillwell illistrates a situation that occurred at Columbia University when conservative Jim Gilchrist was invited to speak but was unable to because rioting students did not allow him. Stillwell then goes on to say that “Apparently in their minds, niether Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has the right to express their viewpoints” (623). This can be applied to both sides because both of them seem to believe that the opposing belief has no right to speak especially when it is controversial. Lawrence mentions that “whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the
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).
Values some take for granted within this society today were ignored wholesale by a tyrannical colonial authority, and the people of this land rose up, shook off the chains of oppression, and set out to devise a new governmental system under which they could live rather freely. In his iconic “Four Freedoms” speech, America’s 32nd president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, outlined said values, stating that all should enjoy “freedom of speech and expression...freedom...to worship God in [their] own way” and “ a healthy peacetime life” (46). The importance of the concept of free speech and equality to the American identity cannot be understated, as it truly the foundation upon which much of this society rests. In the United states, it is instilled in us that from birth each human is bestowed with the same freedoms as all others. However, time and time again, people are denied these freedoms on the basis of skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or gender. Luckily, when such situations arise, the core belief that each and every person is owed liberty motivates the citizens of this nation to exercise their rights. With this in mind they speak out, or fight, against injustice, to take a further step towards making that dream of equality and a “healthy peacetime life” for all a
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.