The First Amendment states that “freedom of speech” is a fundamental right in the U.S. Freedom of speech is the right to, without fear of being restrained, express opinions and views freely. It is no surprise there is controversy surrounding this topic, as there are potential problems and threats that can arise due to someone expressing their opinion. At the same time, lots of people who defend this right say this is what keeps America unique compared to most other countries. The idea of restricting this right impedes the whole purpose of the freedom of speech right in the First Amendment. The majority of people firmly believe freedom of speech should remain absolute.
The First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as a part of the Bill of Rights, …show more content…
This includes ‘hate speech’; words intended to hurt others. The first amendment says that freedom of speech is absolute, “It doesn’t say ‘Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech except when a person uses threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to stir up hatred’. It doesn’t say ‘Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech except when it is necessary to protect health or morals, or the reputation or rights of others’. In short, it doesn’t contain caveats or exceptions” (Black, 2014). Freedom of Speech includes any sort of speech, nothing is omitted. Knowing this, people feel more comfortable expressing ideas of their own. Circulating different opinions is what keeps America diverse and progressive. If people were unable to express their opinions freely, ethics and views within society would never change and remain stagnant over …show more content…
It has been around without restrictions for years and allows people to exchange ideas, establish common knowledge, and is essential to a democracy. Although this is true, a few minor restrictions certainly wouldn’t hurt. What would hurt though is when the right to freedom of speech results in violence. For example, there was a case in 2005 where Ali al-Timimi was sentenced to life in prison for “a number of offenses, including the crime of incitement, conspiring to carry firearms and explosives, and soliciting others to make war against the United States” (Schmalleger, 68). Regardless of whether or not restrictions should be established, the First Amendment does say there shouldn’t be any interference with the right to freedom of speech. The problem with this is the interpretation of the Amendments is subjective. People often have differing views on the Amendments and there is no real set-in-stone way for them to be interpreted. It is up to circumstances and views in the future to determine where to draw the line with freedom of
The First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as a part of the Bill of Rights, …show more content…
This includes ‘hate speech’; words intended to hurt others. The first amendment says that freedom of speech is absolute, “It doesn’t say ‘Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech except when a person uses threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to stir up hatred’. It doesn’t say ‘Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech except when it is necessary to protect health or morals, or the reputation or rights of others’. In short, it doesn’t contain caveats or exceptions” (Black, 2014). Freedom of Speech includes any sort of speech, nothing is omitted. Knowing this, people feel more comfortable expressing ideas of their own. Circulating different opinions is what keeps America diverse and progressive. If people were unable to express their opinions freely, ethics and views within society would never change and remain stagnant over …show more content…
It has been around without restrictions for years and allows people to exchange ideas, establish common knowledge, and is essential to a democracy. Although this is true, a few minor restrictions certainly wouldn’t hurt. What would hurt though is when the right to freedom of speech results in violence. For example, there was a case in 2005 where Ali al-Timimi was sentenced to life in prison for “a number of offenses, including the crime of incitement, conspiring to carry firearms and explosives, and soliciting others to make war against the United States” (Schmalleger, 68). Regardless of whether or not restrictions should be established, the First Amendment does say there shouldn’t be any interference with the right to freedom of speech. The problem with this is the interpretation of the Amendments is subjective. People often have differing views on the Amendments and there is no real set-in-stone way for them to be interpreted. It is up to circumstances and views in the future to determine where to draw the line with freedom of