The Limitations Of Freedom Of Speech

Limitations on Freedom of Speech

Discussion

The right to freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the bill of rights and the American system of government, but this freedom is not without limits.

How to Define Freedom of Speech

Freedom has been an essential need and basis in this rural area since it claimed freedom from England in 1776 (1). The very first clause in the first ten ratified in 1791 was the article defining freedoms, abilities and establishing that Congress cannot make laws "respecting an establishment" or "prohibiting the free exercise"(Bill of Rights, 2015, Web) of religion. The freedoms established where those of speech, the press, and peaceable assembly. Even though the freedoms seem have been established with clear definitions

R.S. Dillon (2009) from Lehigh University wrote that "Respect in general is, as I 've said, responsive to the objects;" (p. 20) and she further writes that there are two basic forms of responses or respect. One form of response would be evaluative respect or a form of respect given out of great respect. This respect can vary based on the opinions, feelings, or views of an individual. Since an individual 's moral compass can vary many degrees from topic, person or issue this form of respect would likely not be the best type of respect to develop a basis or decision on, moral or ethical. A better form of respect to evaluate moral or ethical issues on would be that of an evaluative respect. This is the type of respect that is "both objectively motivational and the assumption of authoritatively mandated obligations with regard to the object" (Dillon, 2009, p. 21). I feel her point is equitable in that recognition response could be given regardless of having a moral or amoral viewpoint. Having respect that can be given on either attitude can give the best approach for setting up a person 's moral code or ethics. A set of moral code or ethics to someone 's speech would set us up for a utopian society, but seeing as how most individuals do not want to take responsibility for developing the fundamentals of his or her speech this is not likely to occur. Still

Currently the government has taken positive action to keep those that use child pornography, authentic threats, and other indecencies from individuals who tried to use freedom of speech as a false stance. These affirmative actions have help put many harmful people in appropriate correctional facilities. But just as there are many positive actions there have been, what I consider to be, misguided action against freedom of speech. Many view this as the government or a corporate 's approach to censorship despite our right to freedom of speech. Many government divisions and corporations have media departments that have the specific job of making sure that negative press is never witnessed to the masses. While some negative press is not correct and should not be heard, many leaks or whistle-blowing, as it is known, could be fundamental in improving our current social and economical growth. When something is being done, that the majority of American 's sees as amoral, it only takes one individual to bring that information to the public. As seen in the case with Edward Snowden and the NSA documents that he leaked. I am by no means advocating the means by which Snowden leaked the information, but that information needed to be made public. Another more recent event was a group known as The Impact Team leaking information from a website called Ashley