Should The Constitution Limit Our Freedoms?

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.

Furthermore, it is certainly not okay to get a person fired for their political beliefs. As citizens of a country built upon the concept of freedom, we should respect that. We should all respect and accept the fact that having different views is okay because that is how we learn from each other in order to continue grow as a great

In my interpretation of the First Amendment, the rights of the people to freely express their opinions, even if unpopular, is clearly protected. Specifically, hate speech is not clearly defined and may differ between people. Individuals and groups can disagree on if specific issues may be considered hateful. Advocates of, what some may consider as hate speech, will likely disagree that their opinions on an issue would be considered hate speech. Protecting all speech, including hate speech, should only imply that the government is following the first amendment to not interfere or be prejudice against anyone expressing their opinions if done so with regard to other laws.

The rules of the country take precedence over everything else in the public domain. Therefore, prohibiting disparaging remarks is not a violation of freedom of speech. The question of violation doesn’t arise at all as the laws are cleared defined. Government restricts the freedom of speech for citizens if expression threatens to be destructive. And as per the definition, disparaging remarks in public can lead to destructive consequences.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states American citizens have the right to freedom of speech, press, and religion. ("First Amendment") Censorship is the infringement of these rights. Americans should never be censored because it goes against the first amendment and everything that the men and women of the U.S. military have fought and died to protect. When people are not censored they can live freely without worry of being told what they can and can’t do. They can say what they want to say and produce things without having to worry about breaking a law.

One thing that sets America apart from other countries is its freedom. The freedom to say, do, or practice whatever one wants. Hate speech is part of that freedom. Not allowing “hate speech” is essentially telling someone, “Hey, you shouldn’t have an opinion.” There are quotations marks around the words hate speech because there’s no real guideline on what is considered a hate speech. It’s sort of a gray line.

First and foremost, there is a consensus that whenever there seems to be the absence of reasons that are constitutionally valid to regulate the speech of students, then they are fully entitled to a freedom of expression provided they remain within reasonable constitutional bounds. More so, a choice by the administration to prohibit the students against expressing their opinion, in the absence of concrete evidence that permitting them would have had any substantial adverse effects on their discipline is a fundamental violation of the First

As we may know, breaking the law is not always justified. It may lead to dysfunction and chaos in our society. Laws are created and exist to keep the citizens secure, safe, and from behaving in a negative manner that will greatly affect the quality of our lives. Everyone knows that the law should not be broken due to them being an essential piece of humanity, however "the only reason the law should ever be broken by someone was if it was necessary to stay alive or to defeat injustice. The law should protect everyone and if it 's not doing that whether it be due to oppression or survival, it is OK to break it" (Debate.org).

The 2nd amendment of the United States is ¨The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.¨ This statement plainly states that every American has the right to bear arms, there are no other possible interpretations of this amendment that make any logical understanding. The rights cannot be violated because the Government deems it to be politically incorrect, The rights of the people are not being read broadly enough and the misinterpretation leads to ignorance and irrational fear of firearms. ( Ferrara, 1) The District of Columbia´s ban on firearms is totally unconstitutional and a violation of American Liberty. The Mayor, Adrian Fenty argues that since the ban crime rates have dropped; This is a complete fallacy. Since the 1976 ban murder

We have rights to protect ourselves and those around us. Without rights this world will be hectic and anyone would be in a terrible place. As citizens we have the freedom of religion, speech, and the press. No one can tell you what you can and cannot, well it all depends on rather it’s illegal or legal. Knowledge