Restriction Of Free Speech: The Right To Freedom Of Speech

783 Words 4 Pages
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