More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on the first constitutional amendment of freedom of speech
According to the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment protects the right to free speech
An essay on the first constitutional amendment of freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
How Free Is Speech? The First Amendment prohibits Congress from implementing laws which bar freedom of speech and press. This vital piece of the U.S. Constitution helped build one of the more forward thinking nations of today. America is a melting pot of eclectic cultures, but rights and privilege do not always equal respect. Every citizen is protected by constitutional law, but the Supreme Court must decipher free speech from hate speech as the latter is unlawful. The end goal of any regulation is to maintain order without sacrificing anyone’s personal dignity, but implementation requires action in addition to written word. A recent example of the Supreme Court’s due diligence came with an offensive label in sports media. The Washington Redskins are a professional football team within the NFL, and although seemingly archaic to some, many Native Americans still find the name offensive. In response to this case, the Supreme Court ruled that “…the ultimate decision is based on whether the evidence shows that a substantial composite of the Native American population found the term ‘Redskins’ to be disparaging when the respective registrations issued” (N. Irwin, 2014). The Redskins were able to keep their name in the end as there was not enough of an offended group to eventually represent themselves. …show more content…
The Supreme Court does an overall spectacular job in being objective, but there have been questionable cases of hypocrisy.
An article from nearly three decades ago asks if it “...is free speech to lure children with images they've been taught to trust, cartoon images, to a product the surgeon general has called an addiction that can lead to death?” (G. Desroches, 1994). The Supreme Court ruled that these types of advertisements are relegated to commercial speech as opposed to hate speech. Although cigarettes have been proven fatal and offensive, their advertisers have carte blanche within the realm of commercial
media. Works Cited Desroches, G. (1994, September 26). http://adage.com/. Retrieved from http://adage.com/: http://adage.com/article/news/adman-s-struggle-joe-camel-free-speech/89963/ Irwin, N. (2014, June 18). https://www.nytimes.com/. Retrieved from nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/upshot/is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-redskins-team-name.html
The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “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.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.
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.
The First Amendment 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 of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (First Amendment Oct. 20, 2013). But "the First Amendment does not protect all speech from government censorship, and it does not prevent private non-government entities from censoring. Years of US Supreme Court decisions have identified exceptions to the general rule that the governments in the United States cannot censor" (Censorship Copyright © 2002). American citizen's right of freedom of speech should be held in the highest integrity and any kind of censorship of free speech should not be allowed because it take away those rights. However, censorship has been going on for centuries.
Sports organizations that have ethnic team names and mascots have been a controversial hot topic for decades. Professional sports franchises like the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, and Washington Redskins have maintained significant presence and fan base in their respective leagues, but disputes over the perceived racial offensiveness of their names has surrounded them. Some Native American activist groups and political figures think ethnic team names and mascots are disrespectful to their culture and defame the historical legacy of their ancestors. They view the name “Redskins” as a racial slur, and the cartoonish-looking Chief Wahoo mascot for the Cleveland Indians as mockery rather than flattery. Despite the fact that sports franchises know their brand is offending ethnic groups, they have refused to change their team names. Native Americans have experienced psychological distress, lower self-esteem, and a lower sense of achievement because of the offensive and stereotypical names/logos of these teams ("Washington Redskins: Do Offensive Team Names Endanger Public Health?"). This begs the question, should sports teams with potentially offensive names and mascots be required to change their identities in order to be more racially sensitive and politically correct?
The first amendment famously known as the “Freedom of Speech” had always defended by the United States Constitution in the form of the Bill of Rights. However, with the right of to voice our own opinion has led to some people inflicting hate to different group of people in a form of a hate speech. Hate speeches have always existed ever since the introduction of the first amendment in the United States constitution. They usually come into hating against American politicians based on their actions that they don’t agree. However, some individuals believe that hate speeches should be regulated. To address the both sides of the topic, the CQ reporter obtained a statement from Michel Rosenfeld and a response from James Weinstein to how they see the
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.
The First Amendment in the United States Constitution states ?Congress shall make no law?abridging the freedom of speech, or the press?? According to the Framers, the freedom to express individual views is vital to a free government and from their personal experience the freedom to write and publish also needs to be sheltered from government intervention. Every state constitution contains securities of free expression similar to the U.S. Constitution. An extra safeguard for the individual's right to free expression is stated in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: ?No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.? By incorporation of the 14th Amendment, the rewards of the 1st Amendment not only include protection from the federal government, but state governments.
Two ideas that were similar and that were shared by the sources are that the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Source #3 and source #4 explain how they would harm innocent people and would accomplish nothing positive. Source #3 proves that it is good for us to have freedom to say what we want but that there should also be limits to what we have the right to say. Source #3 states, “ The First Amendment to the United States Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech. But what if a person were to shout “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater when there was no fire at all ? The decision to do such a thing would put innocent people in a harm’s way while accomplishing nothing positive.” What is stated above shows that it would harm people by them assuming there is really fire and panic when there actually isn’t anything. Source #4 explains how all our freedoms are important and how we can hurt
"Preventing or punishing speech… is a clear violation of the First Amendment." (Censorship. Opposing Viewpoints by, G...
As I started to read Hate Speech on Campus, the first sentence is a quote from the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The two words that are stressed from this quote is no law. Obviously the writers of the constitution were trying to protect the future generation from losing power to their freedom of speech. But, because of the vagrant misuse of speech that we have in the world today, has everyone looking for a way to censor it.
All people have a rights, this is so important in modern society. The main legal document is a constitution.and constitution says the whole person have own rights. These are the rights right of life, right of Dignity and also right of speech.
Freedom of speech is the very First Amendment in the Constitution. All people should have freedom of speech. No matter the person or the place they should have freedom of speech. Old or young, short or tall, everyone should have it. So, therefor schools should not have freedom of speech. The next few paragraphs will tell you why.
AMHERST -- Free speech is often subject to debate, and at the University of Massachusetts, a federal lawsuit is being filed against the university for violating the free speech of a campus group. Students weighed in on the ongoing controversy.
Freedom of speech is the concept that people can spread their ideas, thoughts or interpret others' opinions freely without humiliating their religions, reputations. People have right to receive or impart information without any interference by governments and other people. Furthermore, freedom of speech is the most precious human right that belongs to everyone so that each of us has a right to freely express ourselves either orally or through writing and also through art as well as internet. However, “when it stands on opposition to other individuals’ interests or public interests , such as privacy ,reputation or national security , restrictions and limitations of freedom of speech should be taken into account”(Sun 153). Despite the common idea, there should be some restrictions on freedom of speech in order to eradicate hate speech, protecting national security and protecting minors.
However, an instance where freedom of speech should be protected at all costs would be when this particular free speech benefits a country or society’s progress. As this freedom of speech is to be protected at all cost, it means that the speaker could be risking their lives or their families’ lives for a cause that they believe in. An example would be Malala Yousafzai, a 17-year-old Pakistani. As the Taliban began to take control over her hometown, Swat valley, they started to ban girls from attending school. Malala felt that this not only took away her education rights, but also, other girls in parts of Pakistan under the rule of the Taliban. Therefore, she decided to speak up against the Taliban, standing up for the other girls who are unable