Why We Should Have Speech Restrictions

Debate on free speech is active in many parts of the world today. Discussions concerning things like hate speech or trigger warnings has raised a serious question: is there a need for free speech to be limited? Many argue that trigger warnings often interfere with and prevent difficult or uncomfortable conversations; while others express their concerns about hate speech and internet trolling becoming a serious threat to public safety. Recently, the UK legislation has responded to trolling’s extremity by establishing longer sentences for those found guilty and convicted and universities like the University of Chicago have banned the use of trigger warnings in classrooms. With the public’s often radical responses to free speech one has to ask if it may cause so much harm and controversy that it'd be better off censored and restricted? On the other hand, how could something that is considered a civil liberty and right under the U.S. Constitution be denied? Speech restrictions should not be allowed because they violate the first amendment of the United States Constitution and threaten democracy. Many would agree that free speech is a right that we should all be allowed the liberty to exercise without the growing interference of speech restrictions. Speech restrictions can come in many forms. One of the recently most popularized forms is a device called a “trigger
Modern day democratic societies, such as the U.S. or UK, should be far too keen to let censorship take hold of democracy and rip it apart at the seams. Once democracy fails and becomes null then so will the documents, such as the constitution, that give democracies life. If speech restrictions are in direct violation of the first amendment and also hold the potential to dismantle these given constitutional rights, then how are they able to be