I think that free speech is one of the most important rights in the United States, and allows citizens to share their thoughts and opinions on things to others. Though free speech is great, after reading this article I learned about how the right is abused. I think that free speech should be limited in certain cases when words are used to hurt, offend others in any way. But, I also after reading other peopleʻs comments, I learned that humans also use words to defend themselves. If you or someone was in a situation that caused you to defend yourself, and harsh words were said in the heat of the moment without thinking that could also be considered as abusing free speech. I agree with both sides of having free speech as an amazing right, and that it should be limited.
13
Freedom of speech is about protecting the speech we hate. Not what's popular.
13
I think free speech should be limited when it starts to concern the lives of those whether it be human or animal. Regardless of sexual orientation, skin color, or race. Free speech should not be limited to just one individual but when it's risking the life and safety of those who have done nothing wrong (merely for being gay for example) then when is it safe to call it "free speech" when it's being so harshly abused and used against those it's suppose to be protecting? Free speech should be limited when it affects someones life because someone else is abusing the limits of it for no other good reason then to be mean, rude, abuse it as far as they can and even go beyond, or even far worse then we could imagine like threats to harm someone and worse.
2
@NA So your saying if you were rude to someone, you would be fine with amy punishment the government deems fit? We already have laws against harassment and verbal abuse. Why would we need to punish people who are being mean for a day.
7
I think that free speech is a important thing for all citizens in the United States and having a way to speak out for their own thoughts about certain situation issues. However, I would think it's best for limited free speech since some might cause violence to the people and the communities.
I believe that free speech is an extremely important right in the United States because it allows us to speak up and share our thought on situations or events. And those thoughts could make changes that would be good for society. I also believe that that free speech should be rarely limited legally. I believe that because of people who would really push the limit and say something that would severely offend society, the court, and the country. But something like this will occur rarely because most of society is careful enough to know what will happen when they say something out loud, in a letter, or on the internet that would offend people very badly. Therefore, we should have free speech, but we must be really careful about what we say.
1
I am a believer that free speech is incredibly important and valuable in the United States, especially when you see how many countries have punished and/or killed people simply for saying something. I only think it should be limited when it is posing a serious threat to the lives of human beings and communities as a whole.
@Nina I do agree on your thoughts about free speech is an important thing to have for all of us. Also, how it should be limited for certain extent.
As a student in high school I believe that Freedom of speech is an extremely important right. Being able to express yourself and what you feel is very important to society. Taking pride in your beliefs should influence the younger generations to be confident in what they believe. Growing in a society where people are not afraid to show who they are, will not only show younger children that it's okay to have a different opinion, but it will also give communities as a whole to grow and become a better place for all.
3
Freedom of speech is an incredibly important amendment that we must uphold as a country. America is a democracy and this is only possible with our ability to speak freely and show what we believe. Everyday people speak their minds, whether it is to a friend or marching in a protest for a better future. But in current times, many things have gotten out of hand. People have taken violent actions and claim it was their freedom of expression. People have encouraged we hurt each other and sometimes even put each other down. I get that we all have a choice, and opportunity to say what we wish, but what happens when this comes at a price. We need to stop preaching hate and teach each other to talk about how we can make the world better. Yes, you can talk about what is wrong with people and you won't be punished but at what price? You are trying to oppress your brothers and sisters. It shouldn't matter what they look like, who they love, what they do. Because not only is it not your body or your choice, you should support and help them, building better roads for the future. So please, when using your freedom of speech, think am I helping or hurting the world? And if its the latter? Try again.
6
Freedom of speech is the most powerful tool available to the general populous. Think of Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and AOC who all gained political power through grassroots movements and the power of free speech. Their speech on other politicians, the rich, and social demographics would certainly be censored in a less liberal society. We cannot prevent these people from speaking freely, we cannot be thought police or conspiracy theory police. We let extremists preach on the street corner about God and Jesus, so we have to let people dissent against the church, against religion, etc. The people must be trusted to be able to discern truth from hate, propaganda (from the government or citizens) from the truth. Increase education rather than curbing speech.
Look at the difference between a society which advocates free speech against one which doesn't. For instance, the USA generally allows citizens to speak how they wish as, even if it is hate speech. Saudia Arabia curbs speech and brainwashes its citizens with religious extremism. Saudia Arabians cannot dissent against Islam nor their dictatorial and murderous rulers, it is one of the worst offenders of human rights in the world. We cannot outlaw speech and give the government or fellow citizens the right to determine what religion should be taught, how people must view race, and how groups must be treated.
7
In a perfect world, everyone would deserve freedom of speech. Everyone would be able to say whatever they wanted with minimal conflict and we would all just move on with our lives eventually. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world and some words we cannot move on from. Hate speech is an entirely different category from just "saying however you feel." Sure, not everyone is going to agree on every single topic but when your view disagrees with an entire race, then that isn't okay and that deserves to be censored. Freedom of speech can and should be limited in certain cases because hate speech can be harmful to a person's existence and that shouldn't be allowed to happen. If we as a country continue to either tear people down or let people be torn down, then we will never exist freely.
There are many reasons why speech should continue to be protected. If we begin to restrict speech, that would be censorship. If we begin to censor ideas, it will get to a point where people will have “never interacted with somebody with a different opinion” (“Colleges Grapple with Where--and Whether--to Draw the Line on Free Speech” (Page 1). If there are no different opinions due to censorship, it would allow the government to do pretty much anything it wants. In the same article, Alina Tugend states, “You hate his views… you have to deal with it” (Page 2). If his views were to be censored, people would never have healthy discussions with each other. People need to continue to interact with one another.
2
Almost all speech should be protected because differing opinions and criticism make communities stronger. The government needs criticism from its citizens to stay true to the needs of a nation. The students at Middlebury expressed their distaste for the political views of Charles Murray ("Colleges Grapple With Where--and Whether--to Draw the Line on Free Speech" pg2). This sends a message of dislike of certain views to the government which may influence them to consider whether certain actions may be approved by their citizens. Many citizens expressed their dislike for Kavanah as a supreme court judge. This shows how people use there freedom of speech to communicate their views and concerns to the government in hopes that they will act in their favor. Freedom of speech allows for the citizens of a nation to communicate with their government. Without it the government would be making decisions without knowledge of all the peoples troubles.
3
The majority of people think the government should only govern as far as the constitution allows them to censor. The First Amendment does not protect against hate speech that contains True Threats to people. In the article “Freedom of Speech and the Press,” it states, “True Threats; threats to commit a crime (For example, I’ll kill you if you do not give me your money) can be punished” (p3). This is important because if the hate speech has true threats in it then it can be punished. Also in the same article, we learn that The First Amendment also protects against “fighting words”; face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable” (p3). Although fighting words are prohibited by the constitution, rarely is it ever punishable and able to be taken to court. This has proven that hate speech is not punishable by law unless it violates the constitution.
2
We need to have free opinions in order to have a democracy. An article by constitutioncenter.org states, “The Supreme Court has held that certain types of speech are only “low” first amendment value” (constitution.org). Our Supreme Court has noticed which speech can really affect others. They were trying to limit any expression that would lead to immediate danger not hurtful opinions. They have shown that they do not want to influence public opinion because it is essential in order for a democracy to run. This article also says, “The government can restrict speech under a less demanding standard when a speaker is in special relationship to the government.” (constitution.org). This shows that the government can restrict content if the speaker is being paid by the government. This is only in the case of which their speech conflicts with their job. The government has shown, through specific and rare court cases, that opinions even hurtful ones are essential for a functioning democracy.
1
Our First Amendment protects citizens’ beliefs even if the popular majority believes that an opinion is morally flawed. Someone who disagrees may think that hurtful speech should be prohibited. A person may believe this because people sometimes say things that “aren’t really an advancement of an idea. They are just purely the advancement of a prejudice” (“Colleges Grapple… Speech” 5). Nevertheless this is false because limiting hurtful speech will never change a mean person from being the way they are.
People’s individuality stems from how they express themselves. If any kinds of words are censored, how can people voice what they truly believe? When a speaker is discussing a topic for example it may be hate speech. Although many may think types of hate speech are wrong it is still an individual’s right to think this way. In reality, limiting these words cannot change a person's morals for good or ill. Respect needs to go both ways because when a speaker is respected people can express dissent (“Colleges Grapple...Speech” 2). If certain expression is deemed unpopular then so be it, it still needs to be protected.
2
America is known for free speech, but how free is it really? There is a debate on how much the government should be allowed to limit people’s right to free speech. One should believe that unpopular and hateful speech should be protected as long as no physical harm occurs. Some may say that unpopular speech should not be protected. However, it does need to be protected because no harm is caused to others when people express themselves.
Everybody has the right to express themselves. People should always have the right to share their opinions no matter how many others disagree. For example, people are allowed to go to “polling places wearing T-shirts bearing Tea Party logos and buttons saying “Please I.D. Me” (“Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Barring Political Apparel” 1). Even though many people disagree with what the clothing may say, they are entitled to voice their opinions. Another example occurred when “Richard Spencer, a prominent white nationalist… was doing a round of college talks” (“Colleges Grapple With Where--and Whether--to Draw the Line on Free Speech” 4). Some students that he spoke to did not agree with what he said, and some even tried to fight him. Everyone should be allowed to express their opinions and if one does not agree then they are not forced to listen. Speech should be protected so that people can share their opinions and views.
2
People should be allowed to say what they desire as long as it does not physically or mentally harm someone. If people were not allowed to speak their minds, nothing would get done and people would go crazy, if their opinions were not put out there. Without free speech people would have to put up with things that they don’t feel are okay. Without the ability to speak your mind people will never get out what they believe. It could all build up and then people will unleash their anger . When people tell you to keep stuff in that is not healthy with anything, especially your opinions. Sometimes people do not know how to express their opinions but they should still have the option of doing so.
1
Limits should exist when harmful threats are made that could hurt people physically or mentally. Keeping people from physical harm is necessary.In the article “Colleges Grapple With Where--and Whether--to Draw the Line on Free Speech,” the advisor to former President Obama said, “We owe it to you to keep you from physical harm, but we don’t owe it to you to keep you from ideas you find abhorrent” (Tugend 5). He stated that the government cannot stop you from voicing your ideas and opinions, but it can stop you if it leads to physical harm. Getting exposed to new ideas makes individuals stronger. People become more confident and able to voice their opinion for what they believe in. In today's society, stating your opinion for what you believe in could be a positive in a way that could change something for the better if everyone stands up and speak out.
1
What is Freedom of Speech?
Imagine you are speaking out against a court case you feel strongly about and your opinion happens to be on the unpopular side of things. Because of this, your opinion is considered hurtful. Police arrive and arrest you because your speech is hurtful to others. If unpopular and even hurtful speech is not protected this could be a regular occurrence. Many people believe that unpopular and hurtful speech should not be protected and that the government should limit it to a far extent. This type of speech should not be limited because many of the threats are hard to determine when they become true. Unpopular and hurtful speech can be helpful in court cases or documents, and unpopular and hurtful speech are often times opinions that are being expressed by people.
While many people have a good case against protecting unpopular and hurtful speech this is why protecting unpopular and hurtful speech is important. Unpopular and hurtful speech should be protected because it can be true and it can be helpful in court cases or documents. In the Kavanaugh case it is unpopular to believe he is innocent of the accusations, but his innocence is found to be true due to the lack of evidence or testimonies backing the accusations. This shows how it is unpopular to believe that Kavanaugh is innocent but it is the truth. This also shows that this type of case or trial would be rare if unpopular or hurtful speech were to be limited.
1
Harmful and unpopular speech does not always have to be protected. One reason is because everyone has different views these days so what one sees as right, may be wrong to someone else. This is realized when “high schools threaten to punish students who kneel during the Anthem” (story 3). People are upset, but these kids have every right to do what? Actions should not be taken against them when it is their First Amendment right to . . . . This supports my example because everyone should be able to do what they want even if it is doing something disrespectful to our nation because you can protest and unfortunately in some ways “ the right to protest is covered under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution “(Washington Post). So you can say all you want that these high school kids are wrong, but they should be allowed to express themselves for who they are.
1
Although it is of strong belief that harmful and violent language should be restricted, some say otherwise. These people believe that all language should be protected. They may believe this because everyone uses harmful language and hope to be protected. They may believe this because they have used this type of language and have gotten in trouble for using this unpopular speech. This is not right because the use of harmful language can lead to the harming of oneself or to another over what is said. Although those ideas are valid, there are better reasons to not protect this speech. One big reason is because when hurtful words are used, violence can occur. In an article about kneeling for the national anthem, one school, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, said the students would receive “serious disciplinary action” if they knelt. If these people received “serious discipline” then these students could act out in a harmful way.
1
If the government started making certain speech illegal, what else would they ban? Restricting certain words is a slippery slope to go on. The freedom of speech is a privilege, not a punishment. We see what happens when the government controls our speech in books like Fahrenheit 451 where the American People become an unquestioned, ignorant population. Limited speech could lead to an one sided, unchallenged America. In this America, anything can be twisted into hate speech if a certain group of people do not like what their hearing. We have to fairly extend the freedom of speech to everyone. Just as stated in the article “Higher education is struggling to balance the demand by some students to be protected by offensive speech while guaranteeing freedom of speech to others.” Why should the government or groups of people pick and choose offensive speech? The government making some speech illegal would be dismantling the whole purpose of the First Amendment, even if it is offensive. This shows that all freedom of speech should continue being allowed, even if you don't like what your hearing, that's what headphones are for.
2
Not everyone agrees on this topic. Someone may reasonably believe this because the First Amendment technically protects your right to say what you want. Therefore, people think that it is important to protect harmful and unpopular speech and the government should not have the right to limit speech. This perspective does not take into consideration the impact hurtful and unpopular speech can have on people. Psychological harm towards people can turn into physical harm. Also, it does not see the positives that can come out of the government limiting speech.
1
Speech should only be limited if it causes a direct threat or harm to someone. If someone were to threaten to bomb a public place or yell “fire” in a movie theater that should not be protected because . . . . In the article “Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition” it states, “Threats to commit a crime (for example, ‘I’ll kill you if you don’t give me your money’) can be punished”, implying that anything threatening the safety of someone is punishable. This is just another of the several examples of why this kind of speech should be limited. The article says that, “Face-to-Face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable”. Words that lead to harm should be punished. Words with an end result possibly being harm should be limited.
1
If the government was to start restricting speech more heavily, then how could it know what to censor? If we were to single out opinions to restrict, then which opinions would be safe? This would be too difficult of a task for the government because they would be restricting people’s opinions while potentially satisfying other people’s feelings. The government could cause problems within the country because people may be offended that their speech was restricted and our country could not be properly considered free if it restricted some they may just be someone’s opinion. It would be a very touchy subject if the government started restricting people’s opinions. If unpopular or even hurtful speech is not protected, then people would not be able to express their opinions on different things. Some people would argue that speech needs to be more restricted, however the government has the first amendment for a reason: it is too difficult to single out certain people’s opinions.
1
It is very important to protect negative speech to a certain extent. In essence, I think the government should force private schools and public schools to allow students to express their opinions as long as it is not causing harm to someone, especially in the case of “three high schools in Long Island said students could face “serious disciplinary action” if they knelt during the anthem before sporting events”(Tugend 1). Even though people consider kneeling for the anthem as “negative speech” it is still a peaceful protest that is not causing any harm to others. Therefore this form of negative speech should be protected. Secondly, “students shouted down Charles Murray who has been accused of scientific racism for linking socioeconomic status with race and intelligence” (Tugend 1). Although the guest speaker is racist, this form of hate speech should not be protected by the government because it can cause psychological harm. These reasons prove that my thesis is true because in one case of negative speech, it should have been protected. While in another case it should have not been protected.
1
I think that the freedom of speech is very important because if we didn't have it the world would fall to chaos. If we did not have the 1st Amendment the world would be filled with silent people. Lots of people would not state their opinion therefore the world would not change from were it is now. The world would not be able to change because it would not have word or actions to have any ideas to base the change off of. The freedom of speech is already limited because if you say something harmful to someone you can get in trouble. Though i'm not saying that is wrong.
Colleges should be required to protect freedom of speech even if it is controversial. But someone who is presenting a hateful opinion that is only there to put a group of people down should not be allowed to present that the colleges own that to there students. Controversial speech is good because it allows people to see both sides of an argument and grow their opinion. By shouting down all other views you can never become more educated in your beliefs.
The Bill of Rights, including the first amendment, has run this country for almost 240 years. The Founding Fathers knew that without these rights, the people would never have a say in the decisions of the country, or be able to revolt if a tyrannical government were to appear. This document was written to be interpreted and used when upholding court and was also made to be used throughout time.
This country was built on these series of principles and core beliefs, and you can't just take someone's God-given rights away because you don't agree with what they're saying. If they aren't hurting you, then they can do as they please. We need to use the amendments to go against the government in times of need. It's an advantage, not a disadvantage.
It simply is necessary to understand that some forms of speech should not be defended. As said in the article, a man yelled 'fire' for no other reason than to instigate panic in the case of Schenk v. United States, 1919. This clearly isn't what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote of the freedom of speech.
In addition, language which is used only to provoke violence or endanger an individual should also be prohibited. The article mentions Brandenburg v. Ohio, where, in 1969, it was ruled that racist and inflammatory language by the Klu Klux Klan, a notoriously fascist and discriminatory was constitutional. Fortunately, the courts of today would say otherwise, and with good reason. These kinds of comments serve no other purpose than to breed violence.
However, it is important to keep in mind that there should be lines drawn to distinguish between what is genuinely wrong and what is not. Discussion speaking on the subject of something inflammatory, yet not inflaming, should not be prohibited. If someone says something another person disagrees with, it should also be given thought and not immediately labeled as 'hate speech.'
Moderation of the First Amendment is key here in order to safeguard the rights of the American people, as well as their safety. Strict boundaries need to be drawn in order to separate what really is discriminatory and what is not. Simply, the First Amendment should disregard language which creates violence and disruption.
In my opinion there are some flaws in the amendment, for example i think that we should have limits to what is said regarding hurtful comments. But that being said everyone does have a right to state and have their own opinions.
in my personal opinion, they should keep the freedom of speech but to an extent. like the article stated, there has been abuse of the freedom of speech right and people use that to be racist and bully others. That should be excluded from the freedom of speech but people have the right to express their feelings, but not in a way to hurt others.
I think that they should touch the freedom of speech. Because if they did people would be outraged, because that one way that people say what is on their mind it is very important for people to have this type of power. But there are always going to be people that want to have that kind of power. And those people that have that power doesn't want anyone else to have the same power as them.but it is a good thing that we have this power that a lot of country's don't have this power. Because their leader doesn't want his people to have the power that he has. And without the power we wouldn't be able to stand up for the things that are important and that have been happening around are country. And are voices wouldn't be heard. And no one wants their freedom of speech to be taken away from them. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I believe that freedom of speech should never be restricted, as doing so would be removing the rights that people have the priveledge to experience here in America. Restricting this right would be horrible for the country; it would cause uprising and rebellion by the people, and it would show signs of a possible corrupt government. However, when people take advantage of their freedom of speech to use it against others and insult them, that is where a line has been crossed between just speech, and harassment. People should be able to speak their minds and speak out against what they believe is wrong. That is a one value that makes America unique; the people get to acknowledge and state their opinions. But when people shout racist slurs to others, publicly slander their names, stereotype them, or threaten them, that is not just freedom of speech anymore. I don't have any answer for what people should do about this, but I do know that any type of verbal harassment is not freedom of speech and should not be tolerated. What I strongly believe is that people should never use freedom of speech as a way to hurt other people, and that it should be used and understood that it is a right that they are graciously allowed to have, and not just an easy way to dehumanize others.
I personally believe freedom of speech should stay the same just because the simple fact of this is so called a "free country." I mean don't get me wrong they're some pros and cons about this but at the end of the day it is a free country if you look at it that way. I just think you could simply avoid bad freedom of speech. I will say that I will accept the Freedom of speech to be custom or censored if it's considered different in certain places for an example professional places. Freedom of speech shows your character and full thinking I guess it could come off bad or good but, it's so many different languages in the united states we are way to far to change the speech now. On the internet will be acceptable because that's the public. I just can't see united states without the freedom of speech part I feel as if then the country will be going down hill even faster. Freedom of speech is important to have for various, different reasons and is very debatable.
1
@Chris L
i agree, there are some pros and cons to having a freedom of speech but if we get that right taken it could lead to a bunch of issues in our country. in the article, they do talk about kkk members abusing the right so i do think that bullying and hate speech should be censored, but we do have the right to speak our minds
Within freedom of speech there is some pros and some cons. An example of a pro is speaking out for your rights that you deserve to have. In this case you are fighting for a reasonable cause and have reasons to backup your drive to fight. Although there are some cons within speaking out. I think some of these cons are shown when people say things straight forwardly meaning to hurt someone or their feelings with no gain from it. An example of this is maybe someone bullying someone through words and they get no advance in anything from it. All they did was be mean to someone. This did not raise them on any scale or help them in any way other than put down the other kid. Freedom of speech is portrayed in many ways in how it should be looked upon, but there are very strict policies when it come to if freedom of speech is more pro based or more con based. I think freedom of speech is effective in many ways, we just have to limit how some people use it.
This is accurate but I believe if a person is being bullied shouldn't he tell someone that he/she is being picked on? what does that have to do with freedom of speech. I feel like there are some occasions freedom of speech could be censored in certain places but being in a free country it will be kind of wrong to do change it. People being picked on now and days I feel like it could be easily avoided. Just had to say something for a paper so don't take this personal lol
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" Freedom of speech is not clearly defined here. However, it can be reasonably interpreted as "the freedom to speak and communicate information". Our Supreme Court has ruled that there is "high" and "low" first amendment value to certain speech. I think that making an ambiguous high to low scale rating how much the first amendment applies to speech is wrong. Speaking is speaking, even if it is offensive or misleading. Inciting violence or physical assault on someone, however, is the one type of speech that I consider to be no longer protected under the first amendment. This is only because inciting violence is more similar to assault than it is to speech. It is not sharing ideas or information - it is calling for an attack. However, the court rulings of "fighting words", and "misleading advertisements" not being protected by the first amendment are incorrect. Having a misleading advertisement is a form of speech, and does not incite violence. Fighting words are a form of speech, and although they can incite violence, they also can express emotion, and so are not solely inciting violence, and are therefore forms of speech. Many would love misleading advertisements and hate speech to be considered unprotected by first amendment standards. But if rationally interpreting the constitution, without bias, we must only prohibit communication that is not truly speech.
Freedom of speech lies at the core of democracy. It is a right so crucial to freedom and the function of our government that it was the first right listed on our Bill of Rights. Free speech creates an environment for people to freely discuss their ideas and develop them with the input of others. Without it, our country would almost undoubtedly be without the freedom we treasure so much. When a totalitarian ruler is trying to take power, one of the first things they limit is their freedom of speech. This goes to show that freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our entire governmental system.
However, there are times when this right should be and is limited. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to be profane, racist, or violent. Free speech is a privilege we have in modern society, and more and more, we have chosen to abuse it rather than value what it means. In these instances when free speech is misused, it should be limited. Our ancestors did not fight tyranny across the world just so that we could be hateful.
Freedom of speech remains the most important right that we have because it gives us an opportunity to have an opinion, share it with others, and popularize our viewpoint. Freedom of speech forms the foundation of our system of government, and without it, the core values of The United States would have disappeared long ago.
Benjamin Franklin rightly observed a democratic government could not exist without a free press, but a free press could survive without government. Free speech, in all its forms, is the necessary fertile ground for the sustenance and growth of our democracy. Any effort to curtail that basic principle is poison to our way of life. It is no coincidence that dictators,monarchs, and other autocrats take control of the media and as many outlets of free expression as they can so they may proceed unfettered. Through our Nation's most difficult of times,the Civil War, Vietnam, etc. free speech was under attack, but it is to the credit of those who stood up for that principle that we continue to survive as the world's greatest democracy.
1
I think that free speech is free speech only if the presentation of opinions is respectful and non-violent. If opinions are not presented in a respectful manner -- such as heckling a speaker because of opposing political views -- then it doesn’t constitute free speech, because in a way, by disrespecting the speaker, you deny their right to free speech. In the same way, violence to state a point is not free speech, because you are not only denying the free speech of whom the violence is against, but you also possess a mindset that only your opinion is right, and people who disagree should be attacked. Why even have freedom of speech? It is important to recognize each other’s opinions not only to preserve democracy, but to respect our differences and our equality. Without freedom of speech, not every opinion or thought would have a say in our society, and our society would become what is known as an aristocracy.
@Ben S.
I agree with the bulk of your post, and with the entirety of its conclusion. However, I would like to assert that free speech need not be respectful.
I my thought, as an individual with very strong leanings toward libertarianism, all rights come limited ONLY by the rights of others. Said another way, I am free to do as I please, without limitation, unless my actions affect another person. Once my rights affect others, "boundaries$, not "limits" must be observed.
Speech can certainly be disrespectful without intruding upon the rights of others. However, as you say, agressive, denigrating, inciting, or otherwise abusive speech should not be "protected", as it presents harm to the subjects of that speech.
As I often quote, "Your rights stop at my nose". Neither government, nor individuals, have the right to cause harm (of any type) to anyone, without probable cause.
During my time on the internet and at school I tend to see many viewpoints on various subjects. From a neutral standpoint, I would like to say that freedom of speech should not be limited at any point. The people deserve to say and criticize multiple ideas that affect them in their lives be it politics or classroom rules. I would also like to address that actions are different than words. For example, when a political discussion is made during a class or any other public area I believe that people shouldn't attack or make an issue harder on the person they are debating with. Although they may be passionate about a subject it does not give them the right to slander someone for disagreeing with them. When someone decides to stop someone from speaking their mind is when the people start to lose their way in a subject matter. No one should be stopped from speaking their mind or showing their opinion through non-violent actions. Depending on what platform you speak on is another subject that could be difficult to talk about. Social media can be a public platform but it is owned by a private company that can regulate its own rules. It can silence people so that the image of the company isn't ruined. Everyone can speak so everyone should be allowed to speak but if you decide to shut down a public hearing that's when turns from free speech to aggressive tyranny
The First Ammendment protects our rights to freedom of speech-- this right should not be limited, to any party, on the basis that comments made do not threaten violence or are not intended to offend anyone. The First Ammendment must protect students, or anyone of that matter, because it is written that our freedom of expression is a right. Students should not be chastised for their expression of their beliefs. On the other hand though, walkouts as a form of protest do disrupt the school day, although I believe that schools should be lenient when handing out punishments for students taking part in them. Our right to speak is also our right to express ourselves, meaning that it should not be against the law to express your beliefs, whether it be on your clothing or made in a speech. Comments made by the Ku Klux Klan, for example, are made out of hate; hate comments made by hate organizations or any comments that threaten violence should not be interpreted as being acceptable under the First Ammendment. However, comments with the intent to criticize are a part of our functioning democracy and are thus under our right to speak our minds.
@Caroline Gracia
The problem with any restrictions on speech is how to properly apply the restrictions. The HOW and WHY become a sticking point.
Let's use a couple of your examples. Students participating in a walkout, or kneeling during the national anthem, would have their "actions" judged, prior to determining whether there should be punishment. The how and why would, seemingly be the determination of whether it is "allowed". When addressing the speech of groups like the KKK, the how and why would also come under scrutiny.
The problem arises when we try to determine the why. With political speech, there is often an opposing view. Great care would be necessary to avoid a biased approach. As for the KKK, they speak with hate (obvious to most), but claim it is rooted in "pride". How is the "why" to be determined? I don't think there is a reliable way to determine that.
So, to finally get to my point, I don't think the WHY for speech should even be considered. Likewise, the HOW, in my opinion, is moot. Instead, whether a particular speech is protected should be determines by the results of that speech. If it caused harm, it does not fall under our First Amendment protections. If no harm came as a result of the speech, it is protected speech, no matter how offensive it may be.
P.S. Many of the limits on our rights in schools are intended to reduce conflict while in school. Though debatable, there is good reason to consider some restrictions Constitutional.
Freedom of speech although sounding fair and freeing to begin with also comes with a lot of controversies. For example, students being punished for kneeling during the national anthem is not okay. Appropriate body language or words used during the right time should be protected. The complications occur when deciding what is appropriate and what is crossing the line. Freedom of speech should allow peaceful protests and expression of opinion through clothing, body language, or other respectful non-violent ways. In a perfect world expressing an opinion that may be offensive to someone would not be protected by the government. Of course, what I could call offensive someone may just claim that that is their opinion and anyone can have an opnion. Showing disapproval of something such as a law or the way one is treated in a workplace should absolutely be not only allowed but encouraged through protests and strikes.
Freedom of speech is a necessity, especially in this day and age. You cannot limit a person and their choice to say whatever they like and you cannot get rid of a constitutional right just because some people say the wrong things. Words can be hateful, insight violence, and cause people to commit horrendous acts, but the old saying of "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me" gives a simple explanation to my point. If people choose to make threats and try to create hate that falls on them, it should not be a government issues unless things become physical. Kneeling during the national anthem does not go against freedom of speech. For one, it's a silent protest, there are no words for anyone to even censor. And secondly, it's to raise awareness about situations going on within the African American community
@Aniyah S.
Unfortunately, I disagree with your stance. Words can certainly bring harm to an individual. As an example, spreading malicious rumors about a business rival would likely affect his ability to continue doing business. At that point, no action, other than speech, has been made directly toward that individual, yet great harm has come.
The role of government (s), in my opinion, boils down to conflict resolution. The Federal government is tasked (constitutionally) with resolving disputes 1) Between the US and foreign states, 2) Between two or more states within the US, and 3) Between the citizens of a state and their state/local government (primarily civil rights disputes). The role of state/local governments is similar, but limited to a more local scale, and includes other responsibilities according to the laws of the individual states.
Within those roles, the harm done toward an individual through the speech of another individual becomes the domain of the government, to resolve the conflict. That protection FROM speech must exist for a society to remain civil.
Freedom of speech is an important right because a person's voice is sometimes all that person has. To take away a person's thoughts and opinions is to diminish their values and strip their life away. It is important to protect unpopular speech because just because many disagree with it, each life who spoke or agrees with the unpopular ideas is just as human and has the same value as someone who agrees with popular thoughts. I believe that someone's freedom of speech should be protected unless it can lead to harm or endanger someone else's life. For example, if a student is being bullied in school and people are spreading false information about them, then that bully or those bullies should be punished for causing another person pain for no reason other than hate. The first ammendment protects the rights of students in public schools when it comes to political and religious views, but it does not protect the rights of students in private schools since the religion of the school most likely applies to the majority, and thus, the minority might be discouraged to address their opposing views.
I believe that individuals should be able to overtly wear political T-shirts at a polling booth because it is their choice and freedom to share their political views with the world. Also, I do not believe that wearing T-shirts, hats, and buttons expressing certain political views will influence voters to vote a certain way. I think that most people go into a polling booth with the particular campaigner they are voting for in mind, and are not going to be easily influenced by a T-shirt supporting somebody else.
Freedom of speech is one of, if not the most essential first amendment right in the running of a successful democracy. Freedom of speech is what allows for debate and what, along with freedom of the press, allows for the transfer of information, and is also the most powerful right for affecting social and political change. Obviously then, it should be protected. While there are certainly some instances in which it should be limited, such as those mentioned in the article, as it may be so inflammatory as to cause violence, for the most part free speech should remain protected, as the removal of this freedom is what allows for dictatorships.
i agree with Aeddon that it is one of the most important amendments. The article says that schools struggle with balanced speech protections. But they loose some of the meaning to what others have to say. I agree with Aeddon that freedom of speech allows debate, which is important to hear everyone's point of views on things.
In my opinion, I don't believe that freedom of speech should be limited in any sense because it draws a line on something that should not have a limit to it. Although there are many hateful things and violent threats that can be made using your free speech, it is something that is unique to our country. In other places such as Canada and in some European countries it is illegal to say hateful things to other. In the United States, you can say these things with no legal consequence, only social consequence. Putting limits upon a human right like speech is bound to create a very anxious and cautious society. Freedom of speech is so important because it creates a society where almost everyone can have a different opinion on one subject, whether it be hateful or supportive. In protecting unpopular speech it shows that others can have differing views on subjects, with those differing views come debates and exchanges of ideas. Many colleges are restricting freedom of speech by not letting controversial speakers talk on their campus. Even if they may carry a controversial opinion, I see it as unconstitutional to not let the person speak there due to their views on certain subjects seen as "controversial." In a video I saw about freedom of speech someone said: "I don't agree with everything you're saying but I would die to protect your right to say it." Although someone may not agree with you, and you don't agree with them, their statement should hold just as much importance as yours
@kery
I disagree with a couple of the points you made. First, any speech that causes harm to someone should be regulated. Inciting violence toward an individual, discrediting someone with lies, making false accusations... each brings harm directly, and should not be allowed. Being insensitive, however, does not bring harm.
Second, the Constitutional protections (specifically the Bill of Rights) are restrictions on government. Though many of those rights extend into personal and societal matters, the amendments themselves are primarily aimed at government. As examples, the 2nd amendment does not allow you to bring a gun into a private business, if the business has made clear that guns are not allowed on the privately-owned property. Police can't search without cause, but a bar can search you as a prerequisite to entry. Facebook can censor inflammatory posts/accounts, but government cannot, unless it causes harm. The government cannot sentence you for a crime without a trial, but your employer can fire you without cause (in right-to-work states).
In summary, speech should only be limited due to its affect (direct harm), and the 1st amendment restricts government, not private parties.
Students should be allowed to kneel during the national anthem because they have the right to do so. There are many groups of people in the US who use their freedom of speech right to say hurtful and cruel things about others and many find this offensive. It goes the same way with the students. Some may be disrespected and find it offensive that students are kneeling during the national anthem but they have the right do so because it is their freedom of speech, and they are showing that they do not agree with what is going on in the country today. They are using their constitutional right to show what America is doing wrong and it is speaking volumes across the country.
In my opinion, I don't believe that freedom of speech should be limited in any sense because it draws a line on something that should not have a limit to it. Although there are many hateful things and violent threats that can be made using your free speech, it is something that is unique to our country. In other places such as Canada and in some European countries it is illegal to say hateful things to other. In the United States, you can say these things with no legal consequence, only social consequence. Putting limits upon a human right like speech is bound to create a very anxious and cautious society. Freedom of speech is so important because it creates a society where almost everyone can have a different opinion on one subject, whether it be hateful or supportive. In protecting unpopular speech it shows that others can have differing views on subjects, with those differing views come debates and exchanges of ideas. Many colleges are restricting freedom of speech by not letting controversial speakers talk on their campus. Even if they may carry a controversial opinion, I see it as unconstitutional to not let the person speak there due to their views on certain subjects seen as "controversial." Every type of speech holds the same amount of value, even if they are seen in bad taste.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that extends to all. Even unpopular speech is protected under the law because all people hold the right to their own opinion. While I do recognize the value of limiting threatening or violent speech in the sake of allowing others to feel safe, serious threats should be heard so that we can take proper action to avoid possibly serious or catastrophic situations. That being said, I find it unfair and quite frankly, ridiculous that schools feel the need to threaten their students with punishment when they choose to kneel during the national anthem. I agree that our war heros and veterans who fight for our safety need to be honored; however, kneeling is simply another form of speech or peaceful protest, both of which are legal. Students hold the right to voice their opinion in which I believe can be the most powerful form of protest, actions without words. The action and the point are both so powerful that words need not be said. While honoring the military is very important, it is not as prominent or pressing an issue as racial injustice, which is what these students are speaking out against when they kneel down.