Freedom of speech is one of the corner stones of American society and is defended vigorously. One huge reason of this defense is the argument where if one small part of freedom of speech is violated or diminished, eventually that will be enough grounds to essentially ban freedom of speech outright. The Slippery Slope. This argument is, at its core, a broad assumption and can be refuted. For one, it is possible for a government to reduce the freedom of speech and go no further, usually due to reasons where what you say could threaten national security and the public welfare in general. Prime example would be that you cannot say “bomb” on a plane. This has not progressed to a new law where we are not allowed to say anything on an airplane.
Another
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.
The slippery slope argument is a misconception that reasons that an event will occur after a specific event has occurred; in other words, it is the idea that when an event occurs, another event will follow, thus it is necessary that the first event must be stopped. As for the event that follows, the first event will be judged and the second event that occurs will be accepted as the outcome of the first event, even though there is no evidence that the second event will occur. According to Jerry Fodor’s Where is my mind, Clark states that in order for the mind to process information, it must go through a series of causal chains. Although, according to Clark, if Otto writes his information down into a notebook, it will not be considered as the
Freedom of speech is a right that was given to Americans some time ago. It is the most cherished right Americans have. People would not be able to express themselves without it. They would not be the same person without it. In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbur, the lack of speech was protrayed through the characteristics of Guy Montags job as a Fireman and their society and government.
In Chapter 2, the author speaks heavily on biblical principles of unity and conflict resolution (Elm-p26). And it is not necessarily that I disagree with him, but when I attempt to translate the ideas into a different cultural context I can see problems arising. For example, Elmer (p24) speaks on conflict as being irritations, misunderstandings or unmet expectations that bring conflict, resulting in disunity. However, I see this as more as an individualistic issue or something that is commonly present in a Western culture. I am not saying it cannot arise in a communal culture, but in most cases I think it is more prevalent in an individualistic society.
It was not long after the enforcement of these laws that dispute arose from them. All fifty U.S. states were trying to grasp these laws and figure out what do about them. People quickly thought that the four laws were unconstitutional, and something had to be done about it.
While the freedom of speech is protected under the constitution, there are several types of speech that are restricted by the government. In general, if the speech is found to cause harm or threaten the safety of the public, it is restricted. According to Oliver Wendell Holmes, “a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent.” (Volokh, E., 2015). There are restrictions placed on fighting words, defamation, threats, and false statements of
The fears are often fueled by a concern that such shifts in our thinking may allow tampering with the genetic inheritance of species in an irreversible slide to unchecked commodification of animals and finally to genetic manipulation of humans. Sometimes, instead of the slippery slope, the image of a damn burst is invoked. The idea is that if we begin with “transgenic alteration of inherited materials, the process will be pursued to the point where the human genotype is also altered.” Attention to slippery slope arguments in relation to other practices, for example, certain punishments, abortion, and physician-assisted suicide. Bernard Williams, a noted philosopher, has written an interesting article titled, “Which slopes are Slippery.”
How Things Have Changed: Why did the law change? Well to start off the world today is very different from what it used to be. We're now concerned about burglars who not only break into houses but also into computer systems. This required a modern update to keep up with our tech-centric lives. Additionally, protecting personal property, even when it's not in our homes, became a priority.
The First Amendment provides freedom in two different clauses. One states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Those clauses are the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. (Ginsberg et al. 99) There should not be limits on freedom of speech.
However, the right to free speech is not absolute. The United State Supreme Court has ruled that the government can ban some speeches that contain “fighting words,” and words that
And if you can say what you what that you can have opinion, debates, controversial movies and tv shows, and protests. Although there are different freedoms for free media and peaceful protest, if there was not a freedom of speech then these other freedoms would not work properly.
One theory is the “slippery Slope Theory” which the text states that once this line is crossed it is only a short time before the coercion bug has bitten and the officers are corrupt (Peak, Gaines, & Glenson, 2009, p. 225). The beneficiaries of the free drinks or meals most times feel indebted to do some quid pro quo work for the contributor. In addition many feel that the accepting gratuities is completely wrong since they are providing a service and are obligated to provided that service free from gifts and or gratuities (Peak et al., 2009, p. 225). Another theory by Withrow and Daily called a “model of circumstantial corruptibility” makes the argument that the exchange of gifts and or gratuities are influenced by two (2) distinct facts:
When legislators draft and pass new laws, the laws are subject to scrutiny by the courts. One way the courts system may scrutinize new laws is by looking at the statute to determine if the law contains language that is too vague to be understood by the common man without much need for interpretation or that the law is not overbreadth (Hall, 2015). The overbreadth doctrine applies to laws that make a legal action or protected right illegal and they typically involve violating a right granted by The Bill of Rights. The vagueness doctrine may challenge a new law when the language within the law is written so loosely that it can be over applied to situation that the law was not intended to be used for or the illegal action is not clearly defined
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.
George Washington once said,"the freedom of Speech may be taken away—and, dumb & silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.” This shows that if freedom is taken away, specifically freedom of speech, the people will feel lost and confused in their country. They would feel as if the did not have a say in the countries