Common saying goes, “Everything comes with a price. You can never gain something if you don’t sacrifice something of equal value.” While this might not apply to all situations, it certainly describes the debate of National Security vs. Individual Privacy. To increase and establish safety and security for the citizens, erosion of individual privacy must occur; the real problem is how far the government should go to ensure that terrorist threats are minimized. To address this growing debate, President Obama said, “It’s important to understand that you can’t have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy... we’re going to have to make some choices as a society”.
Upholding the freedom of speech, though, requires that responsibility and restraint be practiced by the government, the people, and the individual. Admittedly, keeping the delicate balance of freedom of speech and governmental regulation can prove to be tough work for the leaders of America, especially in light of the many advances made toward online communication. Everyday our government is faced with questions regarding how much speech can/should be censored, who decides what words are lawful and which are not, and at what point does protecting one person_Ñés freedom of speech begin to pose a threat to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of other citizens. Personally, I endorse the
Freedom of speech has always been a controversial topic. Bringing up the question of since people have freedom of speech does that give them the right to use hate speech. No, freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to use hate speech. Hate speech is used to put others down or to literally ‘hate’ on a subject or idea. Why in society should we be putting anyone down, just because we do not agree with them?
A consensus along the side of banning speech is that we are to civil to have hate speech. “this issue has already been decided; impugning someone because of their race, gender or orientation is not acceptable in a civil society”(McElwee). Because of this people shouldn 't be up to someone 's genetics to decide how they should be treated modern society. The consensus from the other side is all speech should be protected, but only blatant offensive actions should be banned. Speech is a fundamental right and should be protected.
In the First Amendment of the Constitution is the principal article in the Bill of Rights, it restricts Congress from meddling with the freedom of religion, speech and press, and assembly and petition. The First Amendment should have limits to how far the freedom is taken. Freedom of religion has became a issue in the world today, we see in today’s society's how our views have changed on certain religions. Freedom of speech and press gives everyone the right to say what they want as long as it doesn’t cause individuals to feel uncomfortable because of invasion in their privacy. Freedom of assembly and petition gives every individual the privilege to be anywhere at any time as long as it doesn’t cause violence on public property.
On the other hand, the same civil liberties that allow citizens to freely express their concerns against the government, are the same rights that allow them to express themselves through hateful messages against some sections of the population. These odious messages do not always add any social value to the free market of ideas. Nevertheless, citizens of a democratic society possess the freedom to express any messages, regardless of its value. The only exceptions are if speech becomes threatening, harassing or incites people to violence against an individual or group of individuals. This paper will do a comparative analysis between three arguments for banning hate speech, and three arguments for protecting hate
However, this idea overshadows how similar our countries really are. Censorship occurs everywhere, even in the “Land of the Free”. Things are swept under the rug and kept from people for the “greater good”, but should not the greater good be for people to know what is going on in the world they live in? People constantly post things just to have them removed; social media is a tremendous platform to inform and educate people on things that the news refuses to cover or hides. Concealing information and censoring the media defeats the purpose of the First Amendment and goes against the foundation of our country.
The banning of unfavorable ideas and opinions online will weaken the nation, the methods with with this country are run will remain unchallenged and change will be slowed. Should the government grant one group more rights to speak than another, how can this country ever maintain a fair discourse on important issues, or grow and adapt? Speech that offends must be defended; America can not fall back on the values we once cherished and mimic the tyranny we freed ourselves from. Government
If you cannot beat a racist, a sexist, or a homophobe in open debate, you have no business advocating laws against them. Conversely, if your opinion can only be imposed by the use of force, you’re implicitly admitting that it isn’t justifiable by rational argument” (Vegter). Teaching people to successfully counter the hate speech can decrease the amount of prejudice. Meanwhile, banning that hate speech will only increase the prejudice involved and consequently incite more hate
In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), Freedom of the press was further defined as ""a fundamental personal right"", not confined to newspapers and periodicals. From these interpretations, the Government is disallowed by the Constitution to monitor internet content, as the internet is recognized as a platform -- or, a â€œvehicleâ€ -- that distributes information on a (mostly) global scale. In recognizing internet content as protected under Freedom of speech and Freedom of the press, we must consider the limitations placed on these liberties. The term â€œShouting fire in a crowded theaterâ€, arose in the Schenck v. United States case (1919) which issued that the defendant 's speech opposing the military draft of WWI was not protected by the Constitution. The metaphor in question was the paraphrased opinion of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and is commonly referenced to explain the censorship of speech with malicious or harmful intent.