The politically correctness of language is infringing on our First Amendment rights, but is it right to protect our freedom of speech when it causes verbal harassment to others? There is no way to limit what can be said, no way to restrict language used by others. Yes, we can state that it is politically incorrect, but that will not stop people from using words to hurt others. It is a vicious cycle that has no…
Argument #1:Should the first amendment protect hate speech? No, it should not protect hate speech. There are numerous lines drawn around our free speech already, and most Americans feel they are justified. For example, one cannot falsely yell “Fire” in the middle of a crowded theater. Just because we can say something, it doesn’t mean we should.…
When the general public is asked to refrain from the use of a few words that may be offensive to others, the right to freedom of speech is not infringed upon. In most cases a group of concerned citizens vocalize the need to discontinue the use of a particular word that evokes discomfort in other citizens. For example, there is a campaign against the use of the word “retarded,” and it is called “Spread the Word to End the Word (Downes).” It is not required by law for every citizen of the United States to abstain from using the word “retarded,” so the right to freedom of speech has not been…
As American Citizens our freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution’s first Amendment which “guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition…” (Cornell Law 2017), but that doesn’t or shouldn’t give anyone the right to cause harm or violence against another person or group of people if we do not agree or share the same beliefs. The laws were created to protect us, but many people interpret the laws differently and therefore, feel entitled to speak freely even if it causes…
Limitations on freedoms of society are crucial, especially in America. As Roger Rosenblatt noted in his essay, “We Are Free to Be You, Me, Stupid and Dead,” many people express their freedom of speech in very offensive and controversial ways. Often their expressions violate other amendments and freedoms as well.…
Freedom of speech issues are constantly in the media today. There are plenty of incidents where people’s constitutional rights were met with great and unnecessary force. The First Amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, press, and the right to petition the government. These freedoms are impeded when their freedoms are met with retort. When free speech is not allowed in the public sector, honesty is no longer accepted. This, in turn, sets the precedent of honesty as being looked down upon and considered rude. Why should someone’s opinions be punished because they don’t go along with what is standard or declared acceptable by others. By infringing on the freedom of someone’s speech, it is the same as punishing them for being who they are. Freedom of speech should not be obstructed or met with retort by the…
Allowing people to speak freely is easy when what they say is not offensive. Being free to say things that offend or insult other groups of people may be necessary to challenge those in power or to identify problems within society. I am sure some would argue that hate speech serves no purpose but to offend and divide. To that argument, I would quickly point out that we should not be afraid of what people say, write, or think. You don't fight ideas by attempting to silence them. You fight them with better ideas. Also, who decides what is offensive? For example, if someone said, “I'm sick of Black people killing each other in Chicago”, some would find that offensive, but is that hate speech? We can easily say no, but it would not be our decision. Once a law is in place, those in charge decide how it is implemented. This is the other problem with limiting free speech, those in power would set and interpret the law. History is littered with examples of people gaining power then using that power to silence their…
The always extolled US Constitutional First Amendment right to free speech, and the exercise of it, is in truth penultimate to and contingent upon the right to revolution and rebellion as the ultimate and last resort and stand. For the right to free speech is nothing at all but an empty and servile rhetoric without the implied resolve to fight to the death for it in the last instance. Thus also the Second Amendment’s purpose is to provide the people with the ways and means to effect the intrinsic right to revolution/rebellion in guarding against abusive centralized power. As Jefferson stated, the Second Amendment is constructed for the purposes of the peoples’ “last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government.” – i.e., revolution.…
“You weren’t born in a barn.” Scolded the mother. Growing up Mexican, we have to say hello to everybody and I mean everybody. Especially no vulgar language and to always respect yourself and others. In today’s society most of the morals I mentioned are lacking.…
The first amendment: freedom of speech is violated with censorship. In the ALA Library Bill of Rights, parents, and only parents, have the right to prohibit or control what their children read. Freedom of expression and of opinion is for everyone, not just for the people that the majority thinks are right. In 1953, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said, “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could easily defeat us,”(Quotations: First Amendment, Censorship…). This shows that even the government can see the harmful effects of book banning. Furthermore, “the school alone has the final say in what books are appropriate for the children under its care to read,…
Being able to express one’s self is one of the most important rights of the people to maintain a connected society right to speech should be accepted to do so. The first amendment is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals have. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. This amendment describes the principal rights of the citizens of the United States. If the citizens were unable to criticize the government, it would be impossible to regulate order. By looking at freedom of speech there is also freedom of assembly and freedom of press that are crucial for the United States democracy. According to the “Derechos, Human Rights”, freedom of speech is one of the most dangerous rights, because it means the freedom to express one's discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. These types of rights are protected by the first amendment. There are groups for example like ACLU and other type of organization. ACLU is “America’s nation's guardian of liberty”, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights that the Constitution protects. We should be allowed to try our first amendment right specifically dealing with freedom of speech.…
It is ludicrous for anyone at all to believe that they have the right to regulate any opinion, whether it belongs to one or shared by millions. Just as everyone has the right to protect others with their beliefs, there is also the right to offend. In the article, In Defense of Prejudice: Why Incendiary Speech Must Be Protected (May 1995), Jonathan Rauch claims that “An enlightened and efficient intellectual regime lets a million prejudices bloom, including many that you or I may regard as hateful or grotesque. It avoids any attempt to stamp out prejudice, because stamping out prejudice really means forcing everyone to share the same prejudice, namely that of whoever is in authority,” on page 3. If society were to be ideal, no one’s ideas would be looked down upon, regardless of whoever disagrees.…
There are people that degrade others online by cursing or using language that can hurt the person's feelings. Even though what they are saying is not true, the words make the person feel like they don’t belong. Those people should not be protected under the First Amendment because they are intentionally hurting someone else. A person does not have the right to express themselves if what they're saying has a negative impact on others. For example, if you were in the debate and someone started to curse you out making you feel useless this not something that the first amendment should protect. Another example would be when kids in school use foul language towards the teacher. This is disrespectful and impolite to do to a teacher. This is not considered to be freedom of speech because if a student does this they are punished by being expelled or suspended. The interpretation of freedom of speech is different for everyone and that's why limits should be created on the First…
Since the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, the number of hate sites has increased from one to many. “Today, Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League have documented about 2,800 hate sites,” and growing (Leet, 288). Since globalization took place in our world, the internet has become a place where anyone is able to expose all sorts of information to the billions of eyes of the public. Globalization has it’s positive effects and also, increasingly, it’s negative; Hate speech on cyberhate sites is one of them. The United States is one of the most diverse countries in the world. There is however still a notion that the white people are the ‘superior race’. Racial discrimination is still very much alive in our world…
Freedom of speech is the key element of the real democracies. Freedom of speech is also concerned to the idea that people can speak freely without being stopped, or censored. Freedom of speech is briefly hallmark of democracy because democracy is based on independent thoughts of people. In a democratic society people are allowed to express their views freely and peacefully. There will be no democracy if freedom of speech isn't granted to people. Where there is freedom of speech, new ideas and thoughts are made available by the members of the society through free dialogues, discussions and debates. Thus, the right of freedom of speech is a necessary condition for creating a healthy and democratic society in which, people inhabiting a particular country. On the other hand freedom of speech cannot exist under the monopoly. Therefore freedom of speech should be equally and fairly granted to everyone without any privileges from the poor to the wealthier who are living within a society. As introduced in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ first Article (1948), “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” However people do not live the same life standards, religions or other similar reasons. Therefore they may feel antagonism and antipathy towards other different ones and their understanding of freedom might bring offensive, insulting or sometimes harming problems. I believe that offensive or insulting speeches may also cause some psychological harm but the degree or the type of these speeches might be depended on individuals and any authority should not have the right what type of speeches might be offensive or a hate speech. Furthermore the best way that I find more efficient than censorships is only to prevent other individuals from physical harms. Therefore I find J. S. Mill’s Harm Principle more logical approach in order to establish a democratic society. Although I think that we cannot decide on…