Arguments For Limiting Free Speech Term Paper

¶ … limiting free speech ID: 53711 The arguments most often used for limiting freedom of speech include national security, protecting the public from disrupting influences at home, and protecting the public against such things as pornography.

Of the three most often given reasons for limiting freedom of speech, national security may well be the most used. President after president, regardless of party has used national security as a reason to not answer questions that might be embarrassing personally or would show their administration as behaving in ways that would upset the populace. Although there are many examples of government apply the "national security" label to various situations, perhaps some of the stories that are associated with the Iran-Contra issue best display what government uses limitations...


In horrific tangle of lies double and triple dealing that resulted in the deaths of many Nicaraguans, the Regan administration sought to overthrow a popularly elected government because the new government wouldn't behave as the U.S. wanted it to. Our government didn't want to be seen as supporting terrorists so information was suppressed and events re-written to make it seems we were not part of the operations. Journalists were transferred away from the area because of articles they wrote, and government responded to open questions with lies in the name of national security. It is perhaps good to lie to a population that prides itself on believing in freedom for everyone.
The history of limiting freedom of expression to "protect the public from disrupting influences" is also as long as our history as a nation. The purposes of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 seem contradictory to the just achieved freedoms.

However, if it was the fear of the new government that criticism and dissent would threaten what they were trying to build, then the Act perhaps makes sense. Zinn tells us that the…

Sources Used in Documents:


Curtis, M.K. (1995). Critics of "Free Speech" and the Uses of the Past. Constitutional Commentary, 12(1), 29-65. Retrieved August 5, 2005, from Questia database,

Dan, W. (1989). On Freedom of Speech of the Opposition. World Affairs, 152(3), 143-145.

Reflections and Farewell. (2002). Social Work, 47(1), 5+. Retrieved August 5, 2005, from Questia database,

Cite this Document:

"Arguments For Limiting Free Speech" (2005, August 05) Retrieved April 20, 2024, from

"Arguments For Limiting Free Speech" 05 August 2005. Web.20 April. 2024. <>

"Arguments For Limiting Free Speech", 05 August 2005, Accessed.20 April. 2024,

Related Documents

Book CensorshipIntroductionThe censorship of information is �one of the most pressing issues in libraries today� (Steele, p.1). Censorship basically refers to efforts undertaken by governing authorities or their representatives to change/limit access to material depending on the content of work. Some of the changes or limitations made on work include removal, restriction, or exclusion. Censorship is a practice that has existed in society since ancient times and has been characterized

He was arrested because the town had a law where one could not stand in a public street and scream at others in insulting manner. While it is tempting to understand why Walter Chaplinsky was arrested and most people can understand the annoyance his speech must have caused, it was a law that should have been repealed. Freedom of speech is such a fundamental right ingrained for more than 250 years that

Students' Right to Free Speech The right of student to free speech is a matter that has been debated over years. Where many people claim that students, just like any other group of people, have the right of free speech, others claim that students should know where their limits end. Therefore, at many schools, colleges and universities, the students are provided with a code of conduct that they have to follow.

Ashcroft US Supreme Court case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition In the case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court presented even more arguments and reasons as to why online child pornography is prohibited. What this case failed to do is define how far the government's censorship can stretch. The controversial question lies in the phrasing from the COPA provisions where terms referring to virtual child pornography were struck

The state attempted to justify the law by arguing that the ban on advertising reduced competition in sale of liquor, which resulted in higher prices and reduced consumption. The court ruled that they were not going to restrict truthful speech about a legal product on something that they saw as speculation and conjecture (Pember & Calvert, 2005). Central Hudson Test Effects Unsolicited Advertising From the beginning of federal attempts to restrict unsolicited

speech of a public institution's faculty member to be protected under the Pickering/Connickline of cases, what criteria must be satisfied? Do these criteria suitably balance the interests of faculty members and the institution in the higher education context? There are really two key principles that must be satisfied. The first is that the court determines whether the speech in question hinges on a matter of public concern. If it does,