Limits Of Freedom Of Speech

The limitations of first amendment protections are pretty clearly defined in a huge body of case law ranging from chief justice Holmes, “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” ruling in Schenk vs US in 1919 to the Snyder vs Phelps in 2015 , upholding the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to make homophobic statements in public.

CONSTRUCTED RESPONSE 1. China's one-child policy is a controversial topic for many. China's one child policy was a policy that limited each Chinese family to only having one child and started in 1979. So did China's one child policy impact China positively or negatively? China's one child policy was a good idea because it improved education, lowered pollution, and lowered fertility rates.

The first amendment, the right of freedom of speech is one of the most important classic fantasy to almost anyone living in the United States, building the foundation of our nation. This right gives us plenty of different opportunities to express our opinions and political viewpoints on any issues in America. But it comes with a price, people have been protesting multiple different events trying to prevent people from expressing opposing opinions or political viewpoints on that has issues in America. For the minority of people, expressing a different opinion should be protected no matter how controversial or insensitive it may be.

Most obviously there is a line between free speech and discrimination, free speech and bullying, free speech and defamation, free speech and religious intolerance ect. No matter the law or the right there is always certain restriction that are imposed to keep tolerance exercising in a conflicted society

In his USA Today report, Eric Brady states, “that most Americans find flag burning, cross burning and homophobic protests at military funerals deeply offensive. "Yet the First Amendment takes out of the hands of government the authority to channel those majority sensibilities into law and exercise viewpoint discrimination over such expression,". While Brady may just be reporting on a court filing, his article brings to light a very strong argument: “the government possesses no general governing power to police offensive or disparaging speech." (Source E) so, the First Amendment guarantees that the government’s opinions will never overpower those of the citizens’. Ultimately, what is at stake here is ensuring we uphold the Constitution of the United States, which sets the standards on how we govern and protect our

White Americans receive favorable treatment due to racial disparity in the justice system due to a modern stereotype that, based on the color of your skin, you are considered a threat. There are many cases of wrongful convictions based on skin color – a man of color will often receive a longer sentence than a white man. Of course, there has always been racism in the world – it is inescapable. In a report by Samuel Gross, “Race and Wrongful Convictions”, he claims, “African Americans are more than seven times more likely to be imprisoned for murder than white Americans, and more than six times as likely to be killed in a homicide” (Gross). Considering this, it is clear there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Currently, the American justice system is biased in its treatment of black men and for society to progress, this issue

The first amendment, of the Constitution, protects all citizens from Congress making laws that “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.” Most U.S citizens how this amendment, or at least a summary of it, memorized. Citizens have the right to speak their mind as they sit fit, practice any religion, and protest. However, in modern times, it is understandable to see why this is not entirely true. Court decisions have put many restrictions on the liberties presented in the 1st amendment. A citizen cannot use religion as an excuse for sacrifices, or protest in violent fashions. The most controversial, and complicated, restrictions are those prohibiting certain kinds of speech. One of the Supreme is that obscenity is not protected under the freedom of speech. A problem quickly raise was: what, exactly, is obscenity? Under Miller v California, to be obscene “a publication must, taken as whole, appeal to prurient interest, must contain patently offensive depictions or descriptions of specified sexual conduct, and on the whole have no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” It made sense to ban specific types of speech that was, at the root, meant to be hateful or obscene. However, Indianapolis legislator, in American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut, used

In today's society though, people are starting to become extremely confused on what the First Amendment actually covers. For example, burning the American flag in a protest is actually protected by the First Amendment, but many people see burning the

Freedom of Speech is possibly the most respected American ideal. Envied by citizens of countries where self-expression is a right of some and stricken from others, we uphold this concept with defensive pride. However, we must ask ourselves if this freedom can ever go too far. When does lenience turn into naivety? If speech is abused so freely that it enslaves the minds of another should it become a privilege, rather than a right? In his essay “On Racist Speech”, Charles R. Lawrence III argues for limitations on Freedom of Speech as described in the First Amendment to prevent only the most heinous racial remarks. While I understand why many Americans initially find limiting freedom of speech contradictory to the concept of our free states,

Offensive speech should not be protected under the first amendment. Language has a very impact on how we view the world, also can hurt and in most cases destroy others in different ways. Offensive language separates people from class, race, and culture. Offensive language hurts others emotionally, and verbally. Some people think they are better than others and think it is okay to use derogatory, and disrespectful terms, they will think it is okay to say those same terms and cause isolation.

The first amendment of the United States says that as a United States citizen we have the freedom to speak what we believe. We have been given the right to speak our mind in public and let our views be heard. But does this mean we can insult our listeners or be harsh to them according to race or gender? Does this mean we can speak without any regard for others views and personal feelings? No it does not. By allowing everyone to speak their mind in public, it would cause havoc and disarray among us. This is why certain people should censor the speech beforehand to make sure it has no abrasive material and will be beneficial to the public.

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

Freedom of speech should have some limitations. The American people should have the right to say whatever they want, but to an extent. Whether it is on signs or verbally some things should not be expressed. The United States is well known for being “the home of the free,” but some people take their freedom a bit too far. People can burn flags, protest at military funerals, even use the “n” word and watching pornography in libraries.

Freedom of Speech means that an individual has the right to express their opinion without censorship or restrictions. It means that a person can say whatever they want and not be censored, but they may have to face criminal charges and consequences if they speak something that can injure people or if what they say are threats. For example, a person cannot yell “FIRE” or “BOMB” if there is no such threat. So, are there times where a person should be censored? Yes, there are times where a person should be censored. A person could write about a topic that can cause chaos and rioting. For example, if someone posts that the government is constantly watching us, then some people might protest and riot. Should people be protected from all offensive

There are four general situations in which freedom of speech should be banned. The first one is Clear and present danger: Freedom of speech will not be protected if the words that come from any person's mouth put in danger someone else, provoke violence, or even incite or suggest illegal actions. A second situation is fighting words: These are the terms socially know to rage anyone, and when they are told face-to-face to a second person, they are not protected by the first amendment because they tend to alter public order and stimulate violence. The third main situation in freedom of speech is known as libel and slander: In this situation the Supreme Court explains that when speech or communication is used to damage someone else's reputation, to lie, or to tergiversate the truth and make it look as something it is not, it is not covered under the first amendment. The forth and last boundary of the first amendment is referred to as time, place and manner: This particular scenario does not disallow the content of the speech itself, but it takes into consideration the place where the speech is given, and the way the person presents the speech. If under any circumstance the government interests or regularities are violated, the speech is not protected under the first amendment.