Why We Shouldn T Freedom Of Speech Be Censored?

Though the very First Amendment states that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, an ongoing debate has surfaced on whether or not certain things should be allowed to be said. People have often argued that speech is just words; it isn't hurting anybody. If a speech is the cause of a violent action, then why blame the speech and not the person who acted on it? Others argue that if a speech is enough to cause or promote violence, then it should be censored. Or in other words, believe that certain things said could lead to major threats to public safety. In my opinion, there are a few things that could be better off censored, but the majority of things said shouldn't be that big of a deal. Freedom of speech was never meant to involve violent actions. It was mainly intended to give people the power to voice opinions and to give freedom to the press to propose and oppose ideas. Once violence is incorporated into speech, say for example, someone is publicly plotting to bomb an establishment to make a point to the government; wouldn't it be wrong to not do anything about it? …show more content…
As stated before, in certain cases where speech could invoke a tragedy, there should be ways to counter it. If fact, some laws have already passed limiting speech without countering the First Amendment. An article by Jonathan Turley states that "There are some limitations on free speech that are universally accepted in domestic and international jurisprudence. Namely the exceptions of defamation (lying about someone for gain and/or profit) and incitement language (encouraging others to violence or panic). Many countries also recognize sedition (calling for the overthrow of government) as unacceptable as well." (Turley, Jonathan; "Consequences of Free Speech."; November 18, 2012) It is already obvious to people that there are a few things that are best left