Should freedom of speech be limited under special circumstances? The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides the American people with the liberty of being able to freely express themselves. Over the years, Westboro Church, an American Baptist Church which is known for their seemingly inappropriate picketing on the basis of the words that their signs are displaying has generated the question if there should be limits on free speech. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right and should not be restricted to mass extremes
Furthermore, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects people’s freedom of speech as long as it doesn’t incite any type of violent behavior, fighting words and offensive speech. The United States is unique and incredible because it is one of the few countries where anyone can fully express themselves, for instance, being able to disagree with anyone or talk about how they feel about their current president freely. A country with different regulations on freedom of speech is Germany and how they handle certain topics. Particularly, the denial of the horrific events taken during The Holocaust. Expressing denial or making
…show more content…
Restricting speech, in general, is not the way to go about things. If we use the same basis of seeing something that most would consider distasteful, then we would start restricting other things for the sake of restricting them. For instance, mass shootings are becoming an issue that everybody seems to have an opinion on. Most people suggest an outright ban on all guns and there's a problem with that concept. Restricting the Second Amendment strips away an innocent man's right to wield a weapon for personal protection. As America, we can't just start limiting foundational rights left and right because that leads to hurting the individual who came to America because of the freedom that America has when compared to other countries around the
Whether laws intend to limit the offensive power of a minority or protect a minority from attacks, either way rights are lost. In the words of Roger Baldwin, founder of the civil liberties union, “In order to defend the people you like, you have to defend the people you hate.” Roger Baldwin’s statement indicates that if we limit the free speech of one group we ultimately limit our own freedoms. The first Amendment clearly states the limiting of any groups right is unconstitutional, “make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The basis behind not allowing the government to define free speech allows Americans to create their own social order and among themselves determine what is acceptable.
Does the First Amendment, Free Expression Clause, apply to the New York State law against Criminal Anarchy, depriving Giltow of his liberty of expression under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Benjamin Gitlow, a member of the Socialist Party of America, advocated the overthrow of organized government by force, violence, and other unlawful means through his Left Wing Manifesto. He was arrested and charged with criminal Anarchy, “the policy that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence... or by any unlawful means. The advocacy of such doctrine either by word of mouth or writing is a felony”. Gitlow argued that the New York law was an unconstitutional limit forced by the state on the rights guaranteed
For example being on a plane and yelling bomb or being in a crowded room and yelling fire when there is no bomb or fire. Yelling those things will cause people to panic and can cause problems and might injure people. Everything else should be protected under the first amendment. A quote from Benjamin Franklin, “Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought
The 1st amendment is a God-given right and the fact remains that there will be idiots in a world that hands a microphone to the very first controversial person because a world that distorts the view of political, religious, and social matters to persuade a country to feel a certain way toward an issue deemed pivotal towards keeping the status quo of keeping a racial superiority while keeping a suspicious hint of racial tension. Just because a church exercises the right to free speech people try to add in emotions to an emotionless issue. If you added emotions into everything people would start getting arrested for calling someone ugly or annoying. The world and people as a whole need to learn to grow a set and learn how to not get offended
The first amendment states that “Congress cannot enact laws limiting ”the freedom of speech or press.”’ (Kentucky Resolutions) Again, in short, this amendment is saying that the federal government is not able to pass a law that takes away someone’s right to speak their opinion. Contrary to this amendment, the Federal government did exactly the opposite of what the amendment said was allowed. The acts, passed by John Adams, take away the human right of speaking what is on the mind and using what they say to show them off as a threat.
The First Amendment which prohibits the making of any law abridging the freedom of speech protects a citizen’s right, in limited circumstances, to speak out on matters of public concern. (Berman E 2013, pg. 63) Public employment or private doesn’t stop an employee from expressing himself. Determining when an employee has crossed the line can be difficult. This brings me to an article, “Employee Facebook Likes Are Protected Activity, Appellate Court Rules,” on xpertHR website.
This could include using your religion as an excuse to bomb a mall. The Bill of Rights ensures the Americans the right of free speech, but it also ensures that they are safe from harm caused by these freedoms. The amendments do an effective job at protecting the rights of the people when in regards to the five main freedoms. Most things are not limited in the United States, you can wear, do, say, or act
Another limitation that does not protect citizens under the First Amendment is using fighting words that disturb the peace. In April 1940, Walter Chaplinsky was in downtown in Rochester, New Hampshire handing out literature and speaking publicly about religion. As Chaplinsky continued to talk, the crowd continued to grow, blocking the streets and disturbing the area. The public around him became upset with Chaplinsky as he began to denounce religion as “racket”.
Even though the Westboro Baptist Church offends many people with their picketing and other demonstrations, I believe that the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution should continue to protect their right of performing these acts for two reasons. One, the first amendment already protects, in a sense, some of the actions the church performs, for example, the picketing of high school graduations and claiming perverts ran the schools. As unbelievable as it may sound, the first amendment allows them to say particular things like this because of what is known as the Sullivan Rule, which is a court guideline protecting inaccurate and harmful declarations against public officials as long as the claims were not known to be false at the time they
Under the Bill of Rights, in the first amendment comes the right of the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of pursuing happiness. These rights are equal for every individual and no one can take away one's rights or freedom. We don't had to fight for these rights. These rights are close to us since we are born. However, there should be some restriction on the right to speech, religion, and press.
This is where the contradiction of the first amendment and laws abide one another. Is it freedom of speech or is it a
Borders of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. While free speech is considered to be a basic right, as the Supreme Court has given the right to free speech. However, when such "free speech" crosses the line and becomes a threat, the courts have stepped in and punished the speaker. First Amendment does not protect free speech that has the intention of doing harm or damage.
Freedom Anyone in the world with an occasional source of internet has no choice but to see the seemingly outrageous news stories, posted weekly on events in the US. American’s have made their distrust in the government more than obvious, which in many cases, the government has provoked. The largest debate in the states today is the with the concept of freedom and where the lines are drawn between social security, equality, and one’s rights. Freedom is and always has been heavily emphasized in the development of the 50 states. It’s brought peace and war both figuratively and literally.
Freedom of Speech Freedom of speech is the freedom all people have, to express what they consider and express any opinions. It is an ability to express our opinions freely without being punished or censored. All people throughout the world are entitled and must have right to freedom of speech. However, how much do we know about freedom of speech: when did it occur? Does every countries have it?
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.