Restriction Of Free Speech: The Right To Freedom Of Speech

Improved Essays
The Oxford Dictionary defines freedom of speech as “The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.” In the U.S, the right to free speech is projected under the First Amendment of the American Constitution, with the exception of obscenities, threats, and words that incite law breaking. According to the late associate justice of the supreme court William O. Douglas ““Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." North American societies to believe that freedom of speech gives you the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want to say it. While this right is crucial to society, it is often abused. Politicians and activists …show more content…
It allows for the freedom of press to keep a societies citizens well informed and educated, and let people express opinions over current issues. It also allows people to question and criticize their government freely without consequences. History has shown that dictatorships or governments always remove the right to freedom of speech from its people as a form of control. This stops people from being able to question and criticize their government, allowing them to remain in control. These governments also takes away the presses’ right to freedom of speech, keeping their citizens uneducated, and uninformed, thus leaving them complacent. Thus history has shown that the right to freedom of speech is essential to all free societies, allowing people freely express opinions and share knowledge. Political activist, scientist, and historian Noam Chomsky stated that ““In many respects, the United States is a great country. Freedom of speech is protected more than in any other country. It is also a very free society. In America, the professor talks to the mechanic. They are in the same …show more content…
People will exercise their right to free speech, no matter how unsettling their opinions may be. For example, you have Donald Trump on television and in front of large crowds expressing his negative views on immigration, particularly of the Mexican people. He speaks about how many of the immigrants to the U.S are ‘not good people like you and me,’ and even goes so far to call them ‘rapists’. In America you also have fanatic church members who protest the funerals of deceased soldiers, as they died defending a country that supports gay marriage. When criticised for their offensive ways, these people use the first amendment to defend themselves, arguing that they have the freedom of speech. This certainly calls into question the right to freedom of speech. Should these people be allowed to preach their messages of hate towards minorities without consequences? Are these speeches not a threat to the oppressed groups? While these words do not directly incite people to break the law, it does happen. During a Trump rally in Alabama a Black Lives protestor was assaulted and thrown out. After the rally, Trump was quoted as saying “Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    In many countries, hate speech has had laws set against it because they believe that it leads to violence, but in the United States it is considered a form of free speech so it is allowed with no limits. As part of the Constitution, freedom of speech is sometimes used so that people are allowed to express their opinions and say as they pleased. Many Americans want to ban hate speech from being a part of the First Amendment because they believe that it causes and provokes violence against others. Others want to defend their rights as citizens and be allowed to express their opinions with each other without being afraid that they might get fined or put in jail because someone didn’t like what they said and got offended. Hate speech should be…

    • 1733 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Free speech can be relayed through all media outlets without the government intervening. The first amendment protects individuals who publish their criticisms, concerns, and opinions toward the government. It is also important to keep the Government out of the media, being they could distort and censor the news to their favor. Free speech is crucial in repressing tyranny and corruption; being a country with Democratic ideals we can address these problems and correct it. In other countries, free speech is restricted or even revoked!…

    • 696 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Essay On Prior Restraint

    • 1055 Words
    • 5 Pages

    It is the freedom to speak one’s mind without fear of retaliation, now or at any time in the future. We don’t have perfect freedom of speech in any country, yet. It is still a goal we need to strive for. It’s just not authorities that may crack down on uncomfortable or irreverent opinions; the public may be just as harsh a judge when somebody challenges a stigmatized falsely held, but still stigmatized truth. In such circumstances, it is the role of the government to suppress those people and activities that would make people feel threatened by stating opinions that are out of line with commonly held beliefs.…

    • 1055 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They have every right to speak their mind, except when it is harming or hurting another person. However, people may argue no matter how hateful and disturbing the speech is, they should not have restrictions. Additionally, that those that were target should not take offence. They should just have the ability to ignore the speech. This is not always the case, however, some people really take offence to such words.…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    "Without the 1st amendment, America would not be the land of the free...The first amendment truly protects the freedom of United States citizens.” (Trump) Having the 1st amendment allows people to think their own way. It allows people to make their own decisions. Without it our world would be corrupt and there would be no diversity. Everyone would worship the same God and no one would be able to disagree with what Congress does or doesn 't do. Life without the first amendment would also give Congress the power to brainwash our minds, as they could put certain things in news articles or on T.V.…

    • 1144 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Pennsylvanians’ relationships with Indians are exemplary, resulting in very few wars and bloodshed. This colony is self-governed and does not have heavy taxes unlike England. However, Pennsylvania still has the rights of an England citizen, such as the right to petition to…

    • 1212 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    These certain freedoms that have been fought for in court to give American citizens the right to express and protest their believes without fear of breaking the law. However, our freedom of speech does not include inciting actions that could harm others, “making or distributing obscene material”, burning draft cards, students advocating drug use at school events, students delivering obscene speech at school events, and students writing articles in school newspapers about their objections to the administrators. (United States Courts). Many believe that the constitution specifically restricts hate speech but this is false. In fact, “hateful ideas are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas.…

    • 912 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Ch. 5 Civil Liberties

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Ch.5 Civil Liberties We as the Citizens of the United States are given Civil liberties which are the protections the Constistution provides against the abuse of government power. Many people think of them as a set of principles that grant us the protection of our freedom all the time but that 's not completely correct. Even though our Civil liberties protect our freedom it doesn 't mean that we can do whatever we wish, For example The Smith Act made it a criminal offense to advocate violent overthrow of the government or to organize or be a member of any group or society devoted to such advocacy. Another liberty given to us was the Freedom of speech and press but The Sedition Act made it a crime to write, utter, or publish any false, scandalous…

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The clause as mentioned under the constitution states, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech”(IIP Digital | U.S. Department of State ). However, the Constitution also states that freedom of speech is disabled when someone else 's rights are being violated. Therefore, there is substantial room for interpretation. As Kathleen Ann Ruane, a legislative attorney stated, “Even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be subject to “regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication” (1). Moreover, freedom of speech already consist of restrictions “among them are obscenity, child pornography, and speech that constitutes so-called “fighting words” or “true threats”(Ruane 1).…

    • 1397 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The decision aroused much controversy given the situation that it appeared like the ordinance burdened the freedom of speech while intending to protect the freedom of religion, which is under the same protection of First Amendment. Even though there were voice from the public and legal experts questioning and objecting the judicial decision, it was actually made with a unanimous vote, considering based on the legitimacy of statute itself. The Court fully acknowledged that certain forms of speech including fighting words were not constitutional protected, however, it was the Minnesota’s law that the Court found being unconstitutional because it was narrowly tailored as it only restricted certain types of fighting words naming racial, gender and religious discrimination. Under the First Amendment, the state is not permissible to regulate categories of unprotect speech on the bias of content and Minnesota’s statute failed to meet the strict scrutiny. Therefore, the assertion in the statement accusing that the First Amendment put listeners under psychological harm…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays