Free Speech Follies By Stanley Fish Essay

In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and

Freedom of speech is a right that is meant to be interpreted according to how it is written in the constitution. Susan Jacoby makes a valid argument that the first amendment should be interpreted strictly on how it is written despite the vulgar that content that may be displayed. The author even goes as far as to saying pornography, content the author highly disapproves, is a valid point that applies under the first amendment. Moreover, the first amendment should be upheld at all costs despite the content that may be presented. The first amendment should be strictly interpreted, furthermore, federal courts should thoroughly evaluate truly controversial topics that may arise in the future.

Under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause a public flag burning in protest of a recently enacted law would protected because it is a form of expression (Hall, 2015). The Supreme Court has recognized more than just spoken words are protected rights under the Free Speech Clause, and freedom of expression through acts are included, so flag burning is a protected right (Hall, 2015). Next, an advertisement for potato chips found on a billboard is also protected under the Free Speech Clause. The advertisement is considered visual and written expression, which is a protected form of expression (Hall, 2015). Last, the placing of a hand over one’s heart while the national anthem is played is another form of nonverbal expression (Hall, 2015).

I’ve not had the pleasure of reading a nonfiction book as intriguing and enjoyable as David K. Shipler’s Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword in a long time. The pages brought to life stories of secrecy and conspiracy, of authority and rebellion, and of missteps by public figures readers like myself often only get an outsider’s glimpse of. After first reading the introduction, however, I wasn’t sure how I felt; I couldn’t fully grasp what Shipler was saying and was concerned that the rest of the book would elicit similar feelings. Thankfully, those fears were alleviated only pages into Part I: Books. I found Shipler’s style of writing incredibly engaging and easy to follow, and the case studies were both interesting and new to

It’s impossible to censor all disagreeable sides because all that would be left is a bland “politically correct” society and that’s an unattainable goal because it’s not possible to please everyone. In the end, there will always be someone who disagrees with someone else about something and they will indeed use their First Amendment right to free speech to voice these grievances.

This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a

After reading the transcript of the speech, “The Spirit of Liberty”, given by federal judge for more than 50 years, Learned Hand, who served most of the time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, my idea of what it means to be an American was slightly shifted. The statement made by Hand which really caught my attention was, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes.” I agree with Hand in the sense that the constitution can only serve purpose to our country if we, as Americans, learn to be truly accepting.

The right to free speech is one of the most precious rights an individual has as a citizen of the United States of America. This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind and give their opinions of what they think should happen. These rights have been questioned and debated throughout history, and have produced extremely positive things in a lot of cases. The controversy of these rights are not secluded to one era of time; they have been questioned many different times, in many different ways. In modern times, people are always protesting something and in the colonial times it was the same. People wanted their voice to be heard and as long as it is done in a peaceful manner it is legal now, but it resulted in punishment for the colonists. People have never wondered whether or not these rights should exist, the questions involve whether there should be limits or not. I believe that there should be limits on what you can and can’t say, just like there is a limit on what you can and can’t do.

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also

Today, many people express their opinions of controversial topics. From art to music to politics, people always have something to say. Having the ability to state your opinion is worthwhile because it fosters democratic values.

The founders of the United States government tried to protect our liberty by assuring a free press, to gather and publish information without being under control or power of another, in the First Amendment to the Constitution. We are not very protected by this guarantee, so we concern ourselves on account of special interest groups that are fighting to change the freedom of expression, the right to freely represent individual thoughts, feeling and views, in order to protect their families as well as others. These groups, religious or otherwise, believe that publishing unorthodox material is an abuse of free expression under the First Amendment. As we know, the Supreme Court plays an important role in the subject of free speech and

Separate from any concerns over bias, as the article had been written as a clear editorial, I was completely unsure of whether it was appropriate to broadcast opinions that could cause problems for other people. However, I couldn’t stop thinking that was wrong. Even if the entire system had been disrupted, even a system as small as school spirit and sports games, it went against our duty to better the world when we hid behind the majority opinion. It’s our responsibility to keep challenging, and pointing out, and acting against what was broken in the hope that it would become better. We kept publishing those controversial articles, every issue without fail, in an endeavor to make those around us consider what we have to gain when we do not resign ourselves to

Imagine yourself in a world where you could not say what you wanted, or express how you feel. Everyday thoughts that are said out loud like, “Man, this lesson is dumb” were no longer permitted to be anything other than thoughts. Many people in other countries have rules and regulations on what they can and cannot say. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives Americans the right to free speech (Lakoff 260). Learning to speak is something our parents praise us for when we are little. Why, after all the waiting time they endured, would parents let strangers decide what their child could or could not say. Censorship of language and speech is becoming too strict.

Censorship has been a touchy topic over the past few years. Everyone has their own opinion on the topic, but the fact is censorship is way more damaging than people may notice. First off, the definition of censorship is to restrain, block, and censor ideas and information that some may find offensive. The basic definition of censorship completely violates the First Amendment. We, as Americans, have the right to Freedom of Speech. Censorship blocks that by blocking anything some may find offensive. It’s not fair because they’re blocking out how people feel/think just because someone found it “offensive” or wrong. It completely contradicts the First Amendment. People have the right to know about the world and what’s happening. Keeping the

The Constitution of the United States states in its First Amendment that "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" (Funk & Wagnalls 162). This Amendment guarantees each person of free speech. Does this mean that a person can stand in the middle of the street and yell anything he wants? No, society, even though it cherishes freedom of speech, does give this freedom certain restrictions.