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
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