Site Loader


p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.

0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 14.0px}span.

s1 {font-kerning: none}span.Apple-tab-span {white-space:pre}Every United States citizen, no matter what demographic or political affiliation, takes pride in our countries idea on personal freedoms and liberties. Rooted in the very foundation of our counties history, these freedoms are essential to the definition of what it means to be an American. Especially in this current time on our country, when political bipolarism is on the high, the ideas of freedom and liberties concerning speech are being test like never before.  Many individuals claim free speech is more harmful that good, and call for restricting its use in modern America.

  Free speech fundamentally, is what makes democratic counties truly free, and what separates this type of government away from the other tyrannies that plague our world.  Its application to the citizen living in a state enables that individual to expression of their beliefs and ideas. The suppression and censorship of an individuals ideas creates an environment where no one benefits, except of course- the dominate power group. The punishment or any consequence for speaking ones mind goes against  the very roots of free speech and the history of America when at one time our founding fathers faced exaction in light of their actions against the crown, their ruling government.  There are practical reasons that free speech should be restricted in certain contexts as its use would ultimately  create damage to property and individuals. The ability to have our own thoughts, to be able to have free will is what I believe is what makes us Human.

Its what separates our species, and to restrict any kind of freedoms regarding our ability to express our thoughts and beliefs s wrong not only on democratic grounds but humanitarian ones as well.  As a basic principle that the Unites States was built upon, freedom of speech is a right to everyone that is born here or earns citizenship through other means. As a citizen of the unites states there are certain rights that are automatically guaranteed to those living in the country. There are those, however, who debate this freedom can and has gone to far.  There is no question that free will is what makes humans, well human, and this idea shouldn’t be understated. But as  The United States is such a diverse country, it is difficult to map  and pin point how exactly far is too far for freedom of speech.  There isn’t a face of the United States like there was once 70 years ago. The white protestant male that made up most of the population in America has been replaced with a swarm of diversity across the world, as immigrants rush to the shores of North America in search of happier lives and better futures.

As not one individual is born the same, it is difficult to find to another with exactly the same ideas and beliefs as you. That being said, should one persons beliefs be discounted or prohibited because another individual finds it offensive or simply doesn’t agree with said ideas and beliefs. I don’t belief so. But surprisingly, that defies what the First amendment to our constitution enables.  Through the recent years as the popularity of social media has rose, there have been more and more reports of individuals losing their jobs as a result of reported posts on social networking such as Twitter and Facebook.

Being fired or suspended as a consequence for speaking ones mind online shouldn’t be considered a crime or an act justifying punishment where free speech is promised by the First Amendment.  There is no question that the workplace has a code of conduct that should be fallowed. And employees of that firm or business should hold a certain workplace etiquette. That policy, however is null and void as the work day turns to a close and the employees return to their homes; when that person is on their own personal time, their own words should not be used as grounds for acts of discipline.  This idea, however, did not stop the Philadelphia Eagles management (Scanlon) from terminating a gate chief over the individual expressing anger over the teams decisions over the major social network site Facebook. Soon after deleting the post, the gate chief of the NFL team received a phone call and was fired. I belief that this decision by the Eagles team management defies very principle and idea of freedoms and liberties that this country was founded upon.

We as citizens n a democratic state should not be subjected to joblessness because we simply disagree with a supervisors decision or ideas. If we cannot freely express our feeling and personnel beliefs, than what makes conditions that much different than servant who is forced to adhere to their masters beliefs and feelings.  Despite employees having to metaphorically walk on egg shells at their accommodated workplaces, many do, however, feel the freedom of speech can go to far when it devalues another rights and or beliefs.

But there are plenty of examples of some who do indeed cross the proverbial line that are quite frequently met with others who call for punishment. Dr. Laura Schlessinger, during her radio show, spoke several racist slurs while attempting to make a point while she was debating a caller.  Her actions caused a notorious backlash that people called for her immediate termination. During the controversial “firestorm” if you will, Schlessinger resigned, while stating that she needed to regain her first amendment rights. These are indeed sensitive matters in any setting that many people belief that others abuse their right, but they are met usually with public These are the sensitive topics of discussion that many feel allow people to abuse their right, but they are usually met with public discontentment  anyway.  Many individuals who find a need to arouse shock and stir controversy have been fired or suspended as a result of offensive comments such as racial or sexual slurs towards another individual. Don Imus, on several occasions, said controversial remarks via skits and impersonations in what he considers appropriate on satirical comical grounds.

Many found his remarks as sexist and homophobic. As much as I disagree with homophobia and sexism, and even if the comment Imus made were such the constitution guarantees Americans citizens the right to use them. There is no debate that the n-word can be offensive. Through out history it has been used as an agent of degradation.

But I ask wouldn’t any person with self-respect also be offended if their subordinates called them lazy. That being said, shall we outlaw the word “lazy.” Words are just that, words until they are put upon a specific contextual background. Still, even words or phrases cannot be forced be based every occasion it offense a person. The first amendment, specifically free speech,  in our constitution does not take sides. Assigning these limitations on our freedom of speech only enables chaos in which more beliefs and stances become unheard, edited, or simply censored.

In such diverse nations such as the US, it is hard to find the middle ground for what people deem appropriate. Occasionally government intervention has been used, especially in recent history, to deter any speech that directly goes against the governments policies or what the ruling body deems as “actions against the state”In 1971 the Pentagon Papers was drafted, containing the mass criticisms of the United Staes government for its stance and strategy it used during The Vietnam War. Widely distributed to the press after its discovery, the papers were published across the country even after attempts by the US government were done to recover the documents . During the Renaissance Galileo’s work concerning the Two Chief Worlds system plus his piece on Ptolemaic & Copernican with contained the heretic hypothesis that the earth rotated around the Sun and was not in fact the center of the universe, was made illegal by the Catholic Church until the 1830’s.

Other novels and works worth noting that have been banned or censored because they were found offensive include Voltaire’s Jack London’s Call of the Wild (1929) and Anna Sewell’s Black Beauty (1955). And in Tennessee during the year 1925 John Scopes was prosecuted for discussing the theory of evolution in his classroom plus John Locke’s philosophical work Concerning Human Understanding was directly outlawed by school officials at Oxford University during 1701. The list goes on and one with examples of the dominate power group prohibited speech because they find it goes against their own personal beliefs. Our beliefs are what defies as individuals.

It is seldom who you find someone so willing and able to accept a different view and change opinions so quickly. We find our own ideas and theory about the world to be true and righteous  in their own way, so how is it different from the Catholic Church during the Renaissance to the US Government in the 1970’s. The problem is one of many contemporary interest in the developed world, where new ways of thinking brought by new technologies and emerging industries  have cracked open an unlimited access to resources by which a governmental body could at one time suppress censor in a relatively effective manner. As an example pornography,explosive manuals and more have become easily accessible for anyone  with internet access on web. Most of the time, the issue like this to fall into categories of censorship in the media like books, newspapers and videos, plus any political expression from one party.

I will agree against my own beliefs on free speech as there are practical and logical reasons that total in restriction free speech would cause harm to others. Personal freedoms and liberties are important to all of us but I’m sure any logical individual would also argue that personal safety and freedom from attack is even ore valid. There is some speech that can actually be offensive to a specific demographic of people, particularly one that is used often by the dominant culture of group in power. (Shaeur) With the cases such as Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Don Imus, individuals may speak offensive slurs in sincere attempt to reach the truth, but in either case most believe that offending others is a greater moral wrong than restricting the freedom of speech. As an example, a clear and obvious comparison of the Islamic founder and prophet Mohammed’s sexual encounters with a young girl to the sexual exploitations f the common sexual  would of course be offensive to many people of the Muslim faith.

There is many types of speech that comes across hateful and bigoted. As I stated previously, either forms of this speech may be spoken by someone who is sincerely thing to find some point or truth in a topic. But to put it simply, defamation and insults is sometimes thought of as indefensible. There are other speech that is banned for reasons having to do with its sensitivity. This speech is neither offensive and lacks bigotry but rather brings up uncomfortable memories from an individuals past, in which they are trying to work out or not bring up the issue that has yet to be solved.

 I will agree with many that there is speech that should be banned for practical reason. Speech that would directly cause the h ram of property or especially harm another individual. An example of this would of course be shouting “fire” in a crowed public building. (Obviously when there is a fire not actually present.) The argument for this case is that these requirements that are  practical of the situation are implemented that free speech is already banned in practice.  The final area of the counter argument is last but not least is the restriction of free speech restrict the oppression of powerful groups who dominate economically and/or socially.

Quite too often many of these individual abuse their power and drown out the voices of citizens impoverished and unequal in status. The opinions that we all here are promoted by those that use their power and financial resources to do so. One could take into account of the public school system as a tool of the dominate power to determine the options of the pupils they teach.  In such troubling times, our definitions of free speech are increasingly becomes vague and far in between.  Especially with such a diverse country such as the United States there is no clear line in the sand for how far is to far for freedom of speech and what consequences  should be implemented  for those who cross that line. For the exception of practical reason, where instances of self proclaimed freedom of speech would result in mass chaos such as rioting or damage to others and their property, restrictions of speech is strictly an act against the pst amendment.

(Lyons) Repercussions from corporations and firms against individuals living a state where they are protected against am amendment that guaranteed them the right to freely express their own belied and opinions is morally and ethically wrong.  And any act by dominate groups or the governmental body to suppress freedom of speech is grounds for tyranny. It is my belief that freedom of speech is what seated our way of life from other living in across the world. It is my belief that freedom of expression and speech adheres to what it means to be human.

Human- with our own thoughts and feelings, memories and ideas. To take away the ability to freely express our beliefs and ideas is taking way what it means to be human. But this is simply my belief, and the next person can disagree completely.

But that is my point. We should be allowed to think differently, diversity is what makes our country strong. And it is freedom of speech that enables that strength. 

Post Author: admin


I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out