The Freedom Of Speech: The Paradox Of Free Speech

Improved Essays
The freedom of speech, granted within the first amendment to the constitution, allows the sharing of people’s views and opinions without fear of censorship. This right has been essential for the development of ideas and the success of democracy. It has been discussed; however, that this right is paradoxical in nature making it much more complicated than it seems to be. The paradox of free speech, as some argue, stems within the tolerance it demands the intolerant and has caused much debate as to where the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech should lie. In other words, they argue that the freedom of speech cannot guarantee free speech because some groups use this right to silence the speech of those with whom they do not agree. Some …show more content…
In both of these situations, free speech is limited to protect itself. In the snake’s case, the censorship of ideas that lead to the suppression of free speech is then blocked. This is seen by the eagles as an attack on free speech, but allowing absolute free speech would violate many laws in the constitution including privacy and free speech itself. An example of this case is explained in Marcia Clemmitts’ article when she writes that Richard Spencer, the alt-right leader that tried to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference, was ¨later escorted out by security guards¨ (Clemmitts). She also writes the director's decision of the action stating Ian Walters said ¨He is not welcome here. His views are repugnant and have absolutely nothing to do with what goes on here¨ (Clemmitts). This move silenced Spencer´s free speech but it worked to protect the rights of those who aren't white since he is also a supporter of an ¨all white ethno-state¨ (Clemmitts). Many people agreed with Walter´s decision but there were many who called it a violation of the first amendment that was rooted in political correctness. This case exposes the true paradox of free speech, that, to protect free speech, some of it must be censored. This censorship, however, is, in itself, a violation of the

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Restricting people's freedom of speech is not only against the law, but it also limits access to information - no matter how sensitive the topic. This leads to ignorance, which causes problems in our society. Censorship has created this common occurrence for artists to…

    • 1377 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 783 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If we allow him to speak on campus than we tolerate the violence that often shows up at his speeches. However, even further is the problem that allowing Richard Spencer to speak leads to a slippery slope. If we allow him to come talk about ethnic cleansing, white supremacy movements, and allow violence to take place because of his words then we will have to allow all white supremacy groups until eventually the Ku Klux Klan will be wanting to speak at SVSU. Such a slippery slope would be very dangerous and would be neglecting our duty to prevent harm. This is because we would not have prevented the “definite damage, or the definite risk of damage to individuals and the public” which Mill believed was the only reason to limit ones liberties (Mill, p. 87).…

    • 906 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This was clearly violating the freedom of the press right which can be found in the first amendment. Censorship is not always good, people trying to be helpful and trying to end segregation and the government not letting them because they are talking negativily about politics. Many people believe this type of censorship should exist so ignorant people cannot insult our country or our government but if you think about it this method could be the way of a brilliant voice to be…

    • 591 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Also, what people views on freedom of speech whether they are for or against it. Also, how hate speech gets such a bad reputation in a country that allows a person the right to freedom of speech? As well, the positives and the negatives of having freedom of speech. Moreover, how some people view feels that their basic fundamental right is always being threaten? Additionally, what some bans intuitions have against hate speech in this country.…

    • 1789 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Many are now wondering if the ability to say whatever we want whenever we want is actually harmful to the people. Currently, there are some restrictions on free speech in the areas of obscenity, child pornography, and fighting words and true threats. (Ruane 2014) These three categories have all had legislative restrictions placed on them and have been deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Many have taken these restrictions as an indication that Freedom of Speech is not as set in stone as we once thought, thus spurring a long-term debate on how and why free speech should be regulated. The question remains: does regulating free speech do more harm than good?…

    • 1939 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Cloning Should Be Banned

    • 1216 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Furthermore, banning cloning is a legal issue because it directly violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects ideas, not because of their substantive merit but simply because ideas stimulate thought, which in turn breeds the courage and boldness necessary for effective self-governance. And while cloning research is clearly disturbing to many, the Supreme Court has stated that “the First Amendment ordinarily prohibits courts from inquiring into the content of expression, expect in cases of obscenity or libel, and protects speech … regardless of [its] motivation, orthodoxy, truthfulness, timeliness, or taste….…

    • 1216 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Most of the people think that when we put limits on the freedom of speech, it won’t be a freedom anymore, but in fact, when this freedom interferes with other’s freedom; it is not a freedom anymore! Limiting the freedom of speech is a controversial topic, it has two perspectives; one of them is with applying censorship because they think it is protecting their rights while the other is against it because they think it is a threat and they want to know what is happening all around the world. The media should be more aware of sensitive topics and they shouldn’t go over the limits when it comes to compromising the national interest or security to influence decision-making authorities. I think freedom of speech should be limited under three cases,…

    • 1731 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    When people hear the word freedom, all kinds of definitions and perceptions come to mind. The most common definition is the given right to say and do anything. This definition is too vague and can be interpreted the wrong way, so there should be some restrictions on what people say and do. Any act that is illegal or life-threatening should never be justified when someone uses their right to freedom. However, restrictions such as censorship, political correctness, and behavioral advertising all take away the right to freedom from everyone.…

    • 1644 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    People read the tweet and assumed all sorts of different things, things that Reynolds admits he didn’t intend to mean at all. Reynolds was strong enough to admit that he should have worded things differently, stating that, “I understand why people misunderstood my tweet and regret that I was not clearer.” (Boehnke, 2016) But he doesn’t regret posting what he did or feel that he should be punished. While some may argue that his tweet was intending to be harmful towards the public, I agree that not only was it simply misunderstood, but that his freedom of speech should keep him from being punished. So I feel that the ruling of him not be fired was…

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays