Should Freedom Of Speech Be Absolute

Two groups of people were arguing about should celebrities face stricter penalties when they committed crimes. One side agreed with stricter penalties come out with the reason celebrities have influence power on people, and celebrities can easily bail themselves out of the jail or pay for the fines. On the other hand, people fight back with the reason human were all equal in front of law and god, and celebrities have already lost their privacy so why being so cruel to them.When celebrities commit crimes, people with different opinions came out with different ideas. Some consider they should confront stricter punishment and some disagree. Celebrities have already lost their privacy and also human should be equal in front of the law and god, so celebrities should not face stricter penalties.

The constitution clearly states that we have the freedom of speech. If the government did censor speech, so many problems would arise. Some problems may be, how limiting our speech is unconstitutional, wars could occur. The First Amendment doesn’t take sides. Censoring speech in America is a horrible idea.

Today you can voice your opinion and write what you believe. However there once was a law in place that went against that freedom. It was called the Sedition Act, it went against the first amendment of the United States constitution, and it turned the political parties against each other. It caused many people to become angry because their freedom to talk and express their opinion had be taken away. The reason I request for its repel is because it was a violation of the first amendment, turned political parties against each other, and because the only reason the Sedition Act was made was because of the president’s wife.

For example, in our society, “it goes against the First Amendment that states that as Americans we have freedom of speech and freedom of press.”[Word Press] If the government were to implement censorship to our speech, as they do in Brave New World, (Mother, Father, etc out of vocabulary), it would be a violation of the amendments to the constitution which protect us from things like that happening. This would result in protests and chaos all around the nation. In democracies such as ours it has been shown that censorship is accepted only up to a certain extent, but to the extremes that they implement in Brave New World, would not be

It all happened so fast that’s an example of pathos since he used a story and emotional impact. Eli Wiesel made sure he expressed his claim throughout his speech he showed that we shouldn’t divide others due to their race, religion, or political views. He also believed violence is not the answer and we should act on more peaceful solutions. Eli states that “violence is not the answer. Terrorism is the most dangerous of answers.

Charles Lawrence in his racist speech tries to convince that racist speech needs to be regulated. He argues that hate speech is intolerable in the United States because it represents discrimination which Everyone defines hate speech differently. I define hate speech as anything that incites aggression regarding one person or a group of people. Now a day’s people uses free speech as a defense for saying anything but discriminating someone is not free speech. Hate speech against minority is discrimination which has no place in our society.

Government officials agreed with the Espionage and Seditions Acts. The Acts were passed so that people could not say any statements that could interfere with the success of winning the war. People in the United States wanted to win the war, so they were willing to give up some of their rights. In 1918, Charles T. Schenck was convicted because he violated the Espionage Act. The Supreme Court said that “When a nation is at war many things which might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its efforts that their utterance will not be endured as long as men fight.” They upheld his conviction and sent him to prison.

The rules in Anthem include the word I being destroyed and erased from history being replace by us and we. Anyone who says I will be killed. The government was made with good intentions but eventually it was corrupted. The government originally wanted everyone to be completely equal means that they took the will of the people. Other rules include men not being allowed to be alone, two people not being allowed to be alone, Men and women not being able to speak with each other on a personal level, You can’t have any friends The word ego is the most important word, Writing stuff is not allowed unless the consul allows it and everything that is not listed is forbidden.

Jeremy Waldron challenges the absolutist position in his book, The Harm in Hate Speech, where he addresses the damage caused by hate speech and notes its relevance to an extensive freedom of speech (Potter

United States of America, a country that is known for its striving democracy and its amendment towards “freedom of speech”, made an unlawful decision by allowing many public places like libraries and schools to apply censorship and ban books. Literature and any other type of writing are all types of freedom of speech because it allows each author to express themselves and their message through their work. With the authority of censorship and banning of books in a democracy like the United States causes a danger to us because we would not have the ability to obtain certain knowledge that might help us in a significant way. Additionally, I think we would be affected if we did not read any of the short stories we read in class, for example, “Battle Royal” by Ralph Ellison. If we had not read “Battle Royal, we would never have the chance to unscramble and understand his symbolism in his

He argued, to paraphrase Eric Foner that the exercise of some of those liberties is threatening to dismantle the whole structure of government. For Lincoln violation of some civil liberties was in retrospect worth it order to preserve the government. What in my opinion need to be stressed when it comes to Lincoln suspension act is that he really believed that benefits of it outweigh the costs. He also argued, in front of a special session of Congress, that the country was in rebellion and circumstance called for such drastic measures .It was after all the public safety that was in danger. The issue of the controversy over the suspension of Habeas Corpus steam form the fact that the American Constitution is not specific enough to determine who gets to suspend the writ Congress or the President.

What people don 't understand is that they are taking away their own freedoms with Gun Control. In conclusion, the people for Gun Control are infringing rules that are immovable, and the against it are literally on higher ground because they know that the people for it are trying to fight America, which they are. Gun Control is just one big fight that was started by people that lust for control and use it to pollute the society. Even though gun laws are the top answer for less gun

He wants the people to notice and realize injustice the law is. However, there is nothing wrong with fighting against something that feels unjust, but fighting sometimes may lead to destruction within the public. The law shouldn’t be based off of just the people’s opinions but also what the government think is best. It’s acceptable to do what is right but many are afraid to stand up to the the government due to the fact that they have more power. Therefore, people may see going against an unjust law as something to avoid because of the aftereffect they will be having to face.

I found a censored quote on the ‘American Library Association’ . The quote stated “First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end.” I believe this quote is stating that first amendment freedom is the most dangerous amendment when readers want and or don’t want the book to be public to all people. I also think the government making the decision is bad because its people deciding, not the government. They can 't just take our rights away from us and decide independently. The quote then said “The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.” I don’t think we can have a right to think and not have speech.

But there is also the problem that if the NSA become completely transparent, the terrorist and other people the NSA is trying to catch, will have more knowledge as how to not get caught, which would just make the NSA ineffective. Basically the people have to decide whether they want a government that catches terrorists or one that always protects their freedoms. Most parts of the world would rather have a government that catches terrorists and keeps them safe, but unlike these countries, America (excuse my American exceptionalism) has an amendment for their constitution that bans unreasonable search and seizures. The NSA is in a difficult position because it must weigh how transparent they can be to appease the population with how much secrecy they need to function