By definition, freedom of speech is the right for any person to express their opinions without a sense of restraint or censorship. According to the article What does Free Speech Mean, done by the US Court in 2014, while freedom of speech gives people the protection against the infringement of their rights to express themselves, the article also notes that there are several things that are not included in the freedom of speech. Some of the things that are not covered under the right to freedom of expression are such as; inciting action that can cause harm, to make or even supply obscene materials, allowing students to print articles in their newspaper in protest if their own school administration, among many others.
Besides, Ruane, the author of the article, Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment. Congressional Research Service, contends that individual citizens are protected against the infringement of their freedom of speech in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In this particular amendment, the constitution posits that at no given time, should Congress posit laws that violate an individuals freedom of speech, or that of the media. Nonetheless, although the constitution has this right stipulated in its provisions, there are also are those forms of speech that could be restricted with ease as compared to others. Therefore, Ruane, in this particular article, extensively explores the primary exemptions of the First Amendment or rather, how the Supreme Court interprets this constitutional provision that offers citizens the right to free speech (Ruan). Therefore, this, in essence, explains how despite being a constitutional provision, this right offers little or no protection for some specific forms of speech.
In a 2014, article featured in the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the authors highlight the different rights and freedoms that are stipulated under the American Constitution. According to this particular publication, the First Amendments provisions, which are also termed as the freedom of expression, serve as the platform to a stable democracy. This means that, in the absence of this right, other fundamental rights that are provided under the constitution would wither and make absolutely no sense to the American citizens. Besides, the authors also contend that a country that primarily protects free speech is a country which translates into protecting the process of democracy, diversity of thought, and above all else, a free media. These, in their deepest essence, are the most fundamental rights that define a democratic nation.
Mangels, in A Premier on Protest Law, gives an extensive analysis of the protestors rights as define by the Supreme Court. Citing civil rights and labor unrests, Mangels, explains that although the right to free speech is stipulated in the constitution, the court has made decisions that have for a long time, given restrictions on time, place and the methods of demonstration. For this reason, individual states and cities provide some special permit system which ensures that protestors seek permission before holding any demonstrations or protests (Mangels).
Conversely, in 2014, an article titled, Freedom of Speech is Wrong, was published in The Escapist Magazine. According to the authors of this particular article, people tend to lose sight of the real implications of the Freedom of speech provision. Although the authors do not dispute the essential role played by the right to free speech provision, they make the contention that, despite having this right, there are no particular ramifications for those who speak with an intention to cause problems. Thus, in a nutshell, specific implications for those who speak to cause harm or fuel protests should be stipulated.
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
