Free Speech Persuasive Speech

These forms of speech aren’t protected by the First Amendment because they can help to incite people

One of the major principles of the United States government has always been the freedom of speech given to its citizens, but what really comes with this freedom? Does this founding principle make it socially acceptable to create uncomfortable environments and use words to injure others? I think this right has limitations anywhere you go. Countries like Israel are making the word Nazi outlawed. And this isn’t because they’re trying to limit and control freedom of speech but rather because of its symbolic meaning in history.

In the New York Times article “The Harm in Free Speech”, Stanley Fish argues that it would make no difference if Jeremy Waldron’s book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” was titled “The Harm in Free Speech”. While providing an insightful review of the novel, Fish promotes the ideas depicted in the novel. Fish argues that American society is obsessed with using the First Amendment to say outwardly offensive statements. Fish asserts that “hate speech” is not simply expressing an opinion, but rather a way to belittle members of society a person deems unworthy. Americans hide behind the First Amendment and use it as a justification to spew hate speech.

The first amendment may seem like something that is generally understood among all of those who use it, but this may not be the case. While most citizens of the United States of America would certainly say that they understand and can comprehend what the first amendment means, an underlying lack of knowledge, upon what is presumed to be the most important of all the amendments, can still be discovered. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The specific piece of the first amendment that is particularly important

The first amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens’ rights to; freedom of the press, peaceful assembly, religious freedom, the right to petition the government, and the right to free speech. The Constitution itself asserts: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” Interpreting the first amendment has always been a subject for debate, and many citizens of the United States are unaware of what is actually protected by the first amendment, specifically in regards to freedom of speech. This lack

After mentioning why racist speech is wrong, Lawrence comments “I also have a deeply felt apprehension about the resurgence of racial violence and the corresponding rise in the incidence of verbal and symbolic assault and harassment to which blacks and other traditionally subjected and excluded groups are subjected”(72). Putting emphasis on how racist actions hurt others is important for the reader to comprehend. Furthermore, the idea of free speech “reinforces our society’s commitment to tolerance as a value”(71). Gives choices to each individual to decide who and what they stand for, no more pandering and watching what others do. As a result, free speech brings community together as a whole.

People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.

The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate

Perhaps the most obvious rights Americans enjoy are acquired from the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, and press guaranteed in the First Amendment. It is this amendment that gives America its environment of freedom, because if expression were restrained, oppression of the people would soon imitate. As George Washington said, "If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. " When the people can 't voice their perspectives, tyranny begins. The government cannot take control over my opinions and thoughts.

During the twentieth century, the United States emerged as a persistent and powerful actor on the world stage. And at key moments of worldwide involvement the encounter with a foreign "other" subtly affected the meaning of freedom in the United States. Today, when asked to define their rights as citizens, Americans instinctively turn to the privileges enumerated in the Bill of Rights—freedom of speech, the press, and religion, for example. But for many decades after the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791, the social and legal defenses of free expression were extremely fragile in the United States. A broad rhetorical commitment to this ideal coexisted with stringent restrictions on speech deemed radical or

First Amendment rights are guaranteed to all American citizens, but current free speech issues are testing Constitutional boundaries. Where must the line be drawn between free speech and infringement upon others’ rights? Is there some speech so cruel and so appalling that it does not merit protection? These issues have been raised by the recent activities of the Westboro Baptist Church. Based out of Topeka, Kansas[1], this small group of radicals is marked by their hateful views and their contempt for homosexuality. The Westboro Baptist Church has gained notoriety and sparked national outrage with their offensive acts, particularly by protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers.

A Constitutional Perspective on The Preservation of Liberty To establish which amendment in the Bill of Rights is the most influential to the preservation of liberty, one must first determine the true meaning of the word liberty. The Oxford dictionary defines liberty as “The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behaviour, or political views.” Not only is this one of the core values ingrained into the base of our American culture, but it is also one of the main characteristics of a successful community (“First Amendment.”) Many societies argue that citizens do not have basic rights, the first amendment does the best job at protecting the nation's rights from the government by giving individuals freedom of speech, religion, and freedom of petition. The First Amendment has five freedoms guaranteed for the American people’s such as the right to religion, speech, and petition.

The article discusses how these are not crimes that are being committed, rather, these are crimes that are only being discussed. This raises the question of whether or not the United States is overcriminilizing speech. The article argues that in order for these crimes to seriously be considered as a criminal offense, the government needs to create an objective way of qualifying what is and

Words do not directly lead to violence, in fact words are often used to settle disputes in a more constructive way than violence. One’s inability to accept the views of another person is not the fault of the latter, but the former. Fighting words can be qualified as words that are not necessary to communication of information or opinions. The Fighting Words Doctrine allows the government to favoritize and discriminate citizens, which is exactly the opposite of what the First Amendment is all about. The First Amendment keeps the government from limiting speech, especially unpopular opinions because the views of the minority are just as important as the views of the

As human beings, we are all born with an entitlement of freedom of speech or synonymously known as freedom of expression as it is a basic human right. It is stated in the Federal Constitution and it is important for us human beings to protect our rights to freedom of speech and expression as it is the backbone for a democratic society. Having the right to express oneself freely without any restrictions is an essential part of what it means to be a free human being. Article 10 in the Federal Constitution states that; (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression; (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) all citizens have the right to form associations.