Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Right to Expression: The Fine Line of the First Amendment
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the enactment of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the PATRIOT ACT), there has been a growing debate concerning the proper role of the government in protecting Americans while balancing their right to free expression. To determine the facts, this paper reviews the relevant literature to provide a discussion concerning the line between an individual's right to expression and the role of the government to protect its citizens from harm, including some salient examples of this conflict in the nation's past. An analysis concerning whether Americans have come any closer to reconciling these issues is followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.
Review and Discussion
On the one hand, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" and this right was extended to all Americans at the state level by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. On the other hand, though, the U.S. government has a fundamental obligation...
Therefore, the question remains at what point do citizens' right to free speech become a threat to national security to the extent that the government must intervene in order to protect Americans? This question has assumed new importance and relevance following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 when the federal government sought to protect all Americans through a global war on terrorism. In this regard, Youm reports that, "Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, a raging debate over how to balance national security with freedom of expression has taken on a heightened sense of urgency" (p. 446). The laws enacted against so-called "hate speech" in the U.S. in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been a particularly troublesome issue for many. Indeed, from the perspective of some analysts, the laws against hate speech may be well-intentioned, but they operate by have a chilling effect on free expression. For instance, Berg (2015) emphasizes that, "Pleading the fundamental right to freedom of expression simply looks false when hate speech laws are sitting on the statute books, waiting to be used" (p. 19).
Perhaps the most well-known example of limits to free expression…
References
Berg, C. (2013, September). Free speech lost in translation. Review - Institute of Public Affairs, 67(3), 18-23.
Munger, M. 92015, Spring). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. surveillance state. Independent Review, 19(4), 605-609.
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 51-52, 1919.
Youm, K.H. (2004, Summer). The four freedoms of the First Amendment. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 446-450.
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
It also illustrates how many of the same human rights that the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted and applied are protected by others in a similar way." (Youm, 2007) It is noted that Louis Henkin stated of the U.S. constitutional system and international human rights, that each of these continue to influence each other. U.S. constitutional jurisprudence is invoked by international bodies, in particular by the European and the Inter-American
Internet Censorship The internet came to prominence as a tool and pursuit of the masses starting in the early 1990's. The capabilities, depth and breadth of what the internet has to offer have increased exponentially over the ensuing two decades. Such expansion has greatly eased the spread of information (Palfrey, 2010). The ease in which people communicate and disseminate information has created a cause for concern among many different parties that
One reporter for the New York Daily News rants, "Come on, let's be serious…if anything is clear, it is that the trip of the famous couple to Havana has exposed the travel ban as what it is: a senseless, anachronistic and anti-democratic policy, contrary to U.S. interests and values," (Ruiz, 2013). What was done to resolve the controversy? There has yet to be a clear resolution to the controversy, but the
SOPA Objective argument: The Stop Online Piracy Act The Internet has been called the new Wild West: there is a great deal of profit that can be made, in terms of availability of information, but there are also many hazards, due to the lack of regulation. One attempt to create a 'kinder, gentler' Internet is the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The Act would create a kind of "national firewall by censoring
Balance in the Administration of Justice and Security: The twenty-first century world contributes to several challenges to governments because life has become increasingly globalized. The two major challenges in the globalized world are protecting the security of citizens and to protect people's freedom. The protection of security is a challenge because of the emergence of global terrorism, mass movements of individuals, and advances in communications technology. These factors make it difficult