Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
Freedom of Speech, or the right to express oneself, verbally and in writing, as one chooses, and how, when, to whom, and in what manner one chooses, is a guarantee of all American citizens, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, the First Amendment to the Constitution states: "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
." It is my opinion that freedom of speech has always been, and remains, a necessary component of any open society. However, the political and social value of freedom of speech tends to become forgotten when a people feel that they are unsafe, or begin to feel threatened by their own peers (current American fear of terrorism "from within" is one such example; another was the reticence of many Americans, in the run-up to the Iraq War, to speak out against it for fear of seeming "unpatriotic." At times such as these, freedom of speech can easily give way to both censorship and self-censorship. It is my opinion, however, that freedom of speech must be protected by law, and insisted upon by individual citizens and groups, to the full extent of the U.S. Constitution, within popular, unpopular, and ambiguous national circumstances alike.
From time to time, freedom of speech also is threatened, or comes under attack, within academic, corporate, or other public circumstances or settings. For example, University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill recently came under attack for comments he made in a public speech, in which he compared victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, those who happened to be working inside New York's World Trade Center that day and perished, to cogs in Hitler's war machine. Understandably, Churchill's remarks resulted in enormous public anger, outrage, resentment, animosity, and even threats on his own life. Demands were made from everywhere for Churchill to now have his university tenure revoked, be fired, or worse. As poor in judgment; harsh; thoughtless and cruel as Churchill's remarks may have been, however, under the First Amendment, he still had the right to make them, and in my opinion, the freedom of speech of even someone like him should be protected. If not, it is just to easy for a society of ours to begin granting freedom of speech to those who have things to say we agree with and denying it to others. That is no freedom of speech at all.
The strength of the First Amendment, in fact, is that it protects everyone's free speech, not just desirable free speech According to Derechos Human Rights:
Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. It is also one of the most dangerous rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one's discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. As such, it is one of the most threatened rights, with governments - and even human rights groups - all over the world constantly trying to curtail it
The guarantee of free speech is both a sign of an open society and a protection that distinguishes the United States from other, less open societies that offer their citizens no such protections. Freedoms guaranteed United States citizens based on the First Amendment include freedoms of "speech; press; religion, assembly and petition" ("About the First Amendment"). Further, "Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government might well establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government, and citizens could not mobilize for social change" ("About the First Amendment"). Freedom of speech also protects movies, videos, song lyrics, advertisements, and other communications that may not be to everyone's taste. The alternative to freedom of speech is government censorship. As Wikipedia points out, however: "The philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville observed that people may be hesitant to speak freely not because of fear of government retribution but because of social pressures.
" That is, when an individual states an opinion that is not mainstream, or is considered unpopular, he or she might be subjected to peer pressure to change or retract the opinion; community rejection; disdain or ostracism, or even threatening or violent reactions from others. As Tocqueville correctly predicted, the fear of such reaction to the exercise of free speech, on the part of many individuals, even with the free speech protections granted by the U.S. Constitution, often functions as a sort of self censorship.
This is especially true, in my own opinion, when, for one reason or another, national emotions run high, in a negative sense, due to fear, anxiety, anger, etc. A great danger at such times, and one I have seen first hand in recent years, is that of self-censorship, rather than speaking the truth as one sees it, even if others (perhaps even a majority) disagree. When the United States first declared war on Iraq, I read and heard about (and personally observed) a great many individuals in academic, professional, or other settings disagreeing vigorously, in private and among like-minded friends, with the war for all sorts of good and logical reasons (which, as it turns out in hindsight, have now almost all been confirmed), but afraid to speak up, sign petitions, send e-mails, or be seen at rallies because they thought their words and actions might be seen as "unpatriotic." Their fear at the time (within a nation that supposedly guarantees and protects free speech for all) of speaking up against the Iraq War was that it could even have serious personal or professional repercussions.
However, I wondered then, and now, if the war might not actually have happened after all, if the millions of citizens who truly opposed it, but feared saying so, would have all exercised their freedom of speech. It is at times like this, moreover, that the bedrock American idea of freedom of speech comes under greatest attack, yet must be protected all the more.
When citizens reach a point where they cannot tolerate one another's diverse opinions, and begin, then, to engage in censorship, self-censorship, or both, it is a sign that the openness that has always been a hallmark of American society is beginning to break down.
Some might still argue that free speech the Founding Fathers described has simply become too dangerous, especially in the times we live in now: too likely to incite violence by one citizen against another; one group against another, or bring about other unpleasant consequences. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out:
historically, at times of national stress -- real or imagined -- First Amendment rights come under enormous pressure. During the Red Scare of the early
1920s, thousands were deported for their political views. During the McCarthy period, the infamous blacklist ruined lives and careers. Today, the creators, producers and distributors of popular culture are often blamed for the nation's deep social problems. Calls for censorship threaten to erode free speech.
The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution
Free speech has been imperiled in the past in America, even early on. One famous example is the Sedition Act of 1789. Jedidiah Peck was arrested during this time for daring to circulate a petition critical of the sedition act: David Brown was arrested for publicly campaigning against the Stamp Act, the Sedition Act, Alien Bills, and the Land Tax
. All four acts…[continue]
"Free Speech" (2005, May 03) Retrieved October 26, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/free-speech-66401
"Free Speech" 03 May 2005. Web.26 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/free-speech-66401>
"Free Speech", 03 May 2005, Accessed.26 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/free-speech-66401
Free Speech and the Internet With great power comes great responsibility, and to much is given, much is expected. These two proverbs, one from a recent film that is the most recent to reference it, and the latter, from the book of Proverbs in the Bible, needs to form the catalyst of free speech policy definition and implementation throughout the Internet. While unbridled, unlimited freedom is the catalyst of chaos, the
People can communicate with family and friends even at very long distances without having to pay exorbitant amounts for long-distance calls. Disabled people who are socially isolated have a means of contacting others like themselves. Kids struggling with their homework can receive help from their classmates or get instant feedback from others. There are also the more personal aspects of a person's life which are taken care of by
United States (1970), after a Vietnam veteran was arrested for wearing a jacket with those words into a courthouse. In principle, even speech that is "offensive" is considered to deserve protection, because the consequences of censorship are even more harmful to society than involuntary exposure to offensive words in public. The same right protects artistic expression as another form of speech. In many countries, offensive speech in public is prohibited
Free Speech Although the concept of "freedom of speech" as outlined in the First Amendment to the Constitution appears relatively straightforward, over the course of the country's history numerous cases have arisen requiring this concept to be refined and interpreted for situations the framers of the Constitution could have scarcely imagined. However, the framer's motivations for protecting speech remain just as relevant today, and by examining precisely how and why the
Free Speech vs. Security Freedom of Speech and Homeland Security They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, 1775 Freedom of speech is one of the essential cornerstones of democratic societies. Absent the right to free speech, democracy cannot function -- one might even say there is no democracy without freedom of speech. While most citizens and members of the governing body
Free Speech Clarence Brandenburg, standing with a burning cross in the background, stated at a public rally that "if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken." ("Brandenburg v Ohio") This statement led to the creation of the Brandenburg Test, a legal test to decide whether or not specific speech was guaranteed protection under
Free Speech Rights of College and University Faculty This is a paper that outlines Free Speech Rights issues at academic institutions and argues why it is important to preserve it. It has 16 sources. The freedom of speech is something that has to be preserved no matter what the medium of communication may be, and this is because members of society may be greatly disadvantaged if exceptions are made. As compared to the