Freedom of Speech
Free speech is considered one of the most significant parts of the Constitution today because of its impact on everyday life. The Constitution in the First Amendment notes that the Congress has no power to abridge the freedom of speech or even that of the press. The government, therefore, does not have any role in restricting or constraining speech, but the Supreme Court understands that some restrictions must be in place to avoid getting out of hand. Sometimes, the use of vulgar language can be considered a violation of the freedom of speech, an aspect that could affect the way people interact on a daily basis. Without such restrictions, it becomes difficult to ascertain the role of law in keeping order within the society. …show more content…
The right to the freedom of speech can be limited if the law deems it necessary for the sake of providing a better society. It is not preserved for public officials but a process considered under the law of the country. The rationale here is that the citizens need to know what their roles are and ways of attaining the reasonable trends needed to appreciate the decisions made by all citizens. The society must be in the light when it comes to handling themselves in public (Johnson 353). They ought to understand what their limits are and make sure they behave accordingly. Further, the democratic need for these processes is shown to be an all-inclusive procedure to avoid giving public officials the right to make rules on a whim. The provisions of the law allow people to act based on what is required and establish strong laws that are devoid of any abuse. The society should be aware of these laws so that the pubic officials cannot have discretionary powers to leave any room for making arbitrary decisions (Volokh 120). The law should be clear on who …show more content…
To ensure that laws barring the freedom of speech pass, the government has to look at their necessity and application. Instead of letting the laws dictate what happens in the society, they must go through quality checks and discussions to avoid giving precedence to laws that do not apply to the society today (Volokh 128). The main problem is that these quality checks may be done based on partisanship and selfish needs rather than the idealness of society in such a case. For instance, if the Republican Party handles the laws on freedom of speech, some Democrats could refute them in the name of not being all-inclusive in the formulations, or even refuse them because of certain clauses, leading to the shooting down of the bill (Johnson 356). This could deny the citizens a chance to meet their immediate needs, an attribute that could allow the government to be less intrusive in everything done for the sake of the society. It becomes difficult ascertaining the need for the citizens if the government is overlooking the rights of the people. Some dictatorial governments such as those found in parts of Africa and the Middle East have different ways of dealing with those who dissent with the opinions of the main leaders of the society, and that could affect the impact needed to accomplish the objectives of this society. Therefore, the passing of these laws must be within the mandate of the society. The laws set must answer to a
Free speech is considered one of the most significant parts of the Constitution today because of its impact on everyday life. The Constitution in the First Amendment notes that the Congress has no power to abridge the freedom of speech or even that of the press. The government, therefore, does not have any role in restricting or constraining speech, but the Supreme Court understands that some restrictions must be in place to avoid getting out of hand. Sometimes, the use of vulgar language can be considered a violation of the freedom of speech, an aspect that could affect the way people interact on a daily basis. Without such restrictions, it becomes difficult to ascertain the role of law in keeping order within the society. …show more content…
The right to the freedom of speech can be limited if the law deems it necessary for the sake of providing a better society. It is not preserved for public officials but a process considered under the law of the country. The rationale here is that the citizens need to know what their roles are and ways of attaining the reasonable trends needed to appreciate the decisions made by all citizens. The society must be in the light when it comes to handling themselves in public (Johnson 353). They ought to understand what their limits are and make sure they behave accordingly. Further, the democratic need for these processes is shown to be an all-inclusive procedure to avoid giving public officials the right to make rules on a whim. The provisions of the law allow people to act based on what is required and establish strong laws that are devoid of any abuse. The society should be aware of these laws so that the pubic officials cannot have discretionary powers to leave any room for making arbitrary decisions (Volokh 120). The law should be clear on who …show more content…
To ensure that laws barring the freedom of speech pass, the government has to look at their necessity and application. Instead of letting the laws dictate what happens in the society, they must go through quality checks and discussions to avoid giving precedence to laws that do not apply to the society today (Volokh 128). The main problem is that these quality checks may be done based on partisanship and selfish needs rather than the idealness of society in such a case. For instance, if the Republican Party handles the laws on freedom of speech, some Democrats could refute them in the name of not being all-inclusive in the formulations, or even refuse them because of certain clauses, leading to the shooting down of the bill (Johnson 356). This could deny the citizens a chance to meet their immediate needs, an attribute that could allow the government to be less intrusive in everything done for the sake of the society. It becomes difficult ascertaining the need for the citizens if the government is overlooking the rights of the people. Some dictatorial governments such as those found in parts of Africa and the Middle East have different ways of dealing with those who dissent with the opinions of the main leaders of the society, and that could affect the impact needed to accomplish the objectives of this society. Therefore, the passing of these laws must be within the mandate of the society. The laws set must answer to a