Free Speech: The Guardian of our Liberties
On June 15, 1775 our young country, low on ammunition and entrenched on a small hill, fought against the near invincible British Empire. Although this fierce battle only lasted three hours and ended as a victory for Britain, the Battle of Bunker Hill gave our forefathers the will to continue the fight. The fight for the freedom to speak against the monarch and his laws. Our forefathers face innumerous odds to eventually win the freedoms they were denied by the red coats. Today, some in our country are attacking the right to free speech as passionately as the British did two hundred years ago. Freedom of speech is the fundamental liberty that all other liberties are built upon, and must be protected from the constant attacks to limit our constitutional right.
Most people who want to limit free speech do not realize the impacts that will eventually follow, limiting speech has to limit all other freedoms. How is it possible to have free expression of religion without free speech? How about freedom of press without speech? James Madison, the creator of the First Amendment, understood this dilemma stating, “free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right” (Preska 5). Madison is basically saying that free speech is the only protection of all other rights, without free speech all other liberties cannot stand. Judge Loretta A. Preska reiterates this in her article, “Tyranny of the Arrogant, Ignorant, and Intolerant: The Liberal movement to Undermine Free Speech”, “[limiting speech] would rip Pandora’s Box wide open, for it could have a domino effect of allowing further restrictive amendments so vast, unknown, and alarming that would wake Madison from his grave” (5-6). Preska understands what the author of the bill of rights feared, restricting speech would eventually lead to degradation of our liberties. Another issue for those in favor of a limited free speech, is who gets to decide what speech gets restricted. If they choose the government, we hand the government overwhelming control. At that point we would be in the same shoes as our forefathers rebelling against an oppressive government. Benjamin Franklin states, “Freedom of Speech is a principal pillar of a free government. When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength from…examinations into the action of the magistrates” (Gibb 304). History clearly sides with Franklin’s assertion that without free speech to keep government in check, government will always evolve into totalitarianism. When a country limits free speech; Orwell’s prophecy in 1984 about Big Brother and thought-crime becomes a realistic future, just ask any socialist-communist nation. The last issue with limiting free speech is that it impedes cultural growth and innovation. Today at American college campuses, students need trigger warnings, free speech zones, and political correctness. Students rally and protest anything they claim is “hate speech”, but does that promote growth? Does that prepare students for the world of many different ideas and opinions? Notice in every country with regressive free speech laws, that country is regressive in many other areas. The exchange of various ideas always results in growth; debating issues sharpens your arguments and beliefs. If a person has a belief that is never challenged, does he rightly know if it is true? Unfounded beliefs lead to common hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is cancerous to knowledge and truth. That is why all dialogue must be protected …show more content…
Our founding fathers understood the integrity of free speech; without the independence to express your ideas, there can be no true freedom. Today’s generation of Americans need to take a step back and think about the future implications of restricting free speech, and what kind of a nation will we leave for our children. A nation that is afraid of hurting feelings, being politically incorrect, and unable to interact with differing opinions is a nation that will fall to mediocrity and eventually to tyranny. This is a far-cry from the nation who defended with their lives the belief that all men should have the ability to voice their
On June 15, 1775 our young country, low on ammunition and entrenched on a small hill, fought against the near invincible British Empire. Although this fierce battle only lasted three hours and ended as a victory for Britain, the Battle of Bunker Hill gave our forefathers the will to continue the fight. The fight for the freedom to speak against the monarch and his laws. Our forefathers face innumerous odds to eventually win the freedoms they were denied by the red coats. Today, some in our country are attacking the right to free speech as passionately as the British did two hundred years ago. Freedom of speech is the fundamental liberty that all other liberties are built upon, and must be protected from the constant attacks to limit our constitutional right.
Most people who want to limit free speech do not realize the impacts that will eventually follow, limiting speech has to limit all other freedoms. How is it possible to have free expression of religion without free speech? How about freedom of press without speech? James Madison, the creator of the First Amendment, understood this dilemma stating, “free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right” (Preska 5). Madison is basically saying that free speech is the only protection of all other rights, without free speech all other liberties cannot stand. Judge Loretta A. Preska reiterates this in her article, “Tyranny of the Arrogant, Ignorant, and Intolerant: The Liberal movement to Undermine Free Speech”, “[limiting speech] would rip Pandora’s Box wide open, for it could have a domino effect of allowing further restrictive amendments so vast, unknown, and alarming that would wake Madison from his grave” (5-6). Preska understands what the author of the bill of rights feared, restricting speech would eventually lead to degradation of our liberties. Another issue for those in favor of a limited free speech, is who gets to decide what speech gets restricted. If they choose the government, we hand the government overwhelming control. At that point we would be in the same shoes as our forefathers rebelling against an oppressive government. Benjamin Franklin states, “Freedom of Speech is a principal pillar of a free government. When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength from…examinations into the action of the magistrates” (Gibb 304). History clearly sides with Franklin’s assertion that without free speech to keep government in check, government will always evolve into totalitarianism. When a country limits free speech; Orwell’s prophecy in 1984 about Big Brother and thought-crime becomes a realistic future, just ask any socialist-communist nation. The last issue with limiting free speech is that it impedes cultural growth and innovation. Today at American college campuses, students need trigger warnings, free speech zones, and political correctness. Students rally and protest anything they claim is “hate speech”, but does that promote growth? Does that prepare students for the world of many different ideas and opinions? Notice in every country with regressive free speech laws, that country is regressive in many other areas. The exchange of various ideas always results in growth; debating issues sharpens your arguments and beliefs. If a person has a belief that is never challenged, does he rightly know if it is true? Unfounded beliefs lead to common hypocrisy, and hypocrisy is cancerous to knowledge and truth. That is why all dialogue must be protected …show more content…
Our founding fathers understood the integrity of free speech; without the independence to express your ideas, there can be no true freedom. Today’s generation of Americans need to take a step back and think about the future implications of restricting free speech, and what kind of a nation will we leave for our children. A nation that is afraid of hurting feelings, being politically incorrect, and unable to interact with differing opinions is a nation that will fall to mediocrity and eventually to tyranny. This is a far-cry from the nation who defended with their lives the belief that all men should have the ability to voice their