Can you imagine human beings keeping silent for several years for the reason that they are scared to speak hate speech to another? May be true that in “Free Speech: Westboro Church Supreme Court Case Tests First Amendment” from Christian Science Monitor (Richey, 2010), Warren Richey shows that offensive speech terrorizes the battered minority. The author demonstrates how the people use offensive speech to harm third-party observers. Besides, Richey argues some people make offensive comments to bring their problems to society’s attention. Also, some people want to destroy religious beliefs and holy material and others do not. However, in a liberal country like America, a large part of people follow the path of freedom of speech and attitude.
…show more content…
This communist system is described as a totalitarian system of government relies on their power to censor. They created a constitution based on their personal benefit, but not for their citizens. Additionally, an authority like that, they use the power of constitution to divide people like thin rail tracks that separate societal groups by virulent discrimination. The dictators there will arrest, attack, or even kill some individuals who dare defy their party, disapprove their doctrines, and expose their mistakes. On the other hand, the constitution of democracy should be better because the balance of justice determines the sense of human rights, as well as decide the destiny of a country. Eventually, negative or positive speech either can take the just cause and courageous voice by citizens that helps the government decides policy for execution in any political and social activity. Banning and censoring offensive speech is unconstitutional, suppressive.
The U.S should not censor offensive speech because free speech influences society’s social development. Everybody can use speech to say what they want and that’s help them actually develop socially because they are able to communicate with others more clearly. "If these civil rights are to remain vital for all, they must protect not only those society deems acceptable, but also those whose ideas it quite justifiably rejects and despises." …show more content…
This describes the lifeblood of a democracy is free flow of ideas; that is necessary to speak out and to discuss ideas. Also, it shows a minimal equality for human rights and civil rights. Therefore, we can see true that the equality in free speech which we can talk about issues of the organization, or communities to adapt and modify mistakes. If we lack the equality in free speech, society will lose the balance and will create riots, violence, or murder. For instance, there is some truth to the argument that some people use social media like weapon to terrorize other groups or individuals by hate speech and threat of messages. But, about eight hundred million people use Facebook to view updated information and two billion people use Google to make research every day. With that large of the people use social media for other purposes, social media is an equitable interest in free posting ideas, statements, films, and pictures. Thus, social media is where we show the equality in free speech, even we use hate speech or not. Yet, we believe that free speech is not to offend, that it arrives for a wonderful responsibility. Finally, we have to protect our unconditional right to freedom of speech and ideas in order to help society
This communist system is described as a totalitarian system of government relies on their power to censor. They created a constitution based on their personal benefit, but not for their citizens. Additionally, an authority like that, they use the power of constitution to divide people like thin rail tracks that separate societal groups by virulent discrimination. The dictators there will arrest, attack, or even kill some individuals who dare defy their party, disapprove their doctrines, and expose their mistakes. On the other hand, the constitution of democracy should be better because the balance of justice determines the sense of human rights, as well as decide the destiny of a country. Eventually, negative or positive speech either can take the just cause and courageous voice by citizens that helps the government decides policy for execution in any political and social activity. Banning and censoring offensive speech is unconstitutional, suppressive.
The U.S should not censor offensive speech because free speech influences society’s social development. Everybody can use speech to say what they want and that’s help them actually develop socially because they are able to communicate with others more clearly. "If these civil rights are to remain vital for all, they must protect not only those society deems acceptable, but also those whose ideas it quite justifiably rejects and despises." …show more content…
This describes the lifeblood of a democracy is free flow of ideas; that is necessary to speak out and to discuss ideas. Also, it shows a minimal equality for human rights and civil rights. Therefore, we can see true that the equality in free speech which we can talk about issues of the organization, or communities to adapt and modify mistakes. If we lack the equality in free speech, society will lose the balance and will create riots, violence, or murder. For instance, there is some truth to the argument that some people use social media like weapon to terrorize other groups or individuals by hate speech and threat of messages. But, about eight hundred million people use Facebook to view updated information and two billion people use Google to make research every day. With that large of the people use social media for other purposes, social media is an equitable interest in free posting ideas, statements, films, and pictures. Thus, social media is where we show the equality in free speech, even we use hate speech or not. Yet, we believe that free speech is not to offend, that it arrives for a wonderful responsibility. Finally, we have to protect our unconditional right to freedom of speech and ideas in order to help society