To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
The First Amendment, adopted in 1791, is a cornerstone of the United States Constitution, declaring, "Congress shall make no law 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" (Pilon). This constitutional protection is not merely a legal safeguard but also an indispensable element of democratic governance and societal independence. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted that "censorship is an almost irresistible impulse when you know you are right" (Sunstein).
However, the delicate balance between the citizen's right to free speech and the necessity for censorship requires careful consideration.
The freedom of speech documented in the First Amendment is not only a constitutional protection but also an inevitable part of democratic government and independence, which are essential values in society. "Censorship," according to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "is an almost irresistible impulse when you know you are right" (Sunstein). That is why the American citizen’s right to free speech should be held as the highest virtue and any censorship of freedom of speech should not be allowed, however, should be respected.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Amendment
4.7 (657)
“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”
Freedom of speech is an essential part of democratic government because the only way truth can emerge when there is an open competition of ideas. However, there is strong support for censorship when people start mentioning extremely offensive opinions. Should the freedom of speech be limited in this case? The answer is “No”. "If liberty means anything at all," writes George Orwell, "it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" (Cox).
If we want to enjoy the freedom fully, the full protection should be given to the freedom of speech; there are no compromises about it. Freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment is not just a right, which can be declared or abolished. According to the "liberty theory," proposed by some legal scholars, freedom of speech is an essential part of the liberty of every person who pursues individual self-determination and self-realization (Cox).
The essence of democratic government lies in the open competition of ideas, making freedom of speech an integral component. In the words of George Orwell, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" (Cox). This unbridled exchange of ideas fosters the emergence of truth and ensures the vitality of democratic principles. The liberty theory, proposed by legal scholars, contends that freedom of speech is essential for individual self-determination and self-realization (Cox).
Moreover, the global nature of freedom of speech allows for personal development and self-expression. The tolerance theory, another theoretical foundation supporting freedom of speech, posits that the ability to teach and promote tolerance is a crucial aspect of this right (Cox). Tolerance, in this context, necessitates self-restraint in the face of ideas that may be personally disliked or even hated. It provides a broader context for exercising tolerance in a diverse and conflict-ridden democratic society.
Furthermore, freedom of speech is also a global right that permits freedom of personal development and self-expression. Another theoretical ground to support the freedom of speech is called "tolerance theory." It holds that the ability to teach and promote tolerance is one of the most important assets of freedom of speech (Cox). From this perspective, freedom of speech itself excludes any type of intolerance, which sometimes appears in a threatening form (religious intolerance, racial intolerance). The "tolerance theory" implies self-restraint, which is the only appropriate response to any ideas, even those that we may personally dislike or hate. The "tolerance theory" provides a broader context for exercising tolerance in a conflict-ridden democratic society. Furthermore, in legal practice, there are certain restrictions on freedom of speech imposed by the Supreme Court. They define a few categories of speech, which are considered not to be fully protected by the First Amendment. These categories include defamation, advocacy of imminent illegal conduct, obscenity and, fraudulent misrepresentation (Farber). However, if the speech does not fall within one of these categories, there are no grounds for the government to argue that freedom of speech should be restricted because of its harmful content.
Thus, freedom of speech is not only a constitutional protection but also a global right that permits freedom of personal development and self-expression. The "tolerance theory" holds that the ability to teach and promote tolerance is one of the most important assets of freedom of speech (Cox). From this perspective, freedom of speech itself excludes any type of intolerance, which sometimes appears in a threatening form (religious intolerance, racial intolerance). The "tolerance theory" implies self-restraint, which is the only appropriate response to any ideas, even those that we may personally dislike or hate. The "tolerance theory" provides a broader context for exercising tolerance in a conflict-ridden democratic society. Furthermore, in legal practice, there are certain restrictions on freedom of speech imposed by the Supreme Court. They define a few categories of speech, which are considered not to be fully protected by the First Amendment. These categories include defamation, advocacy of imminent illegal conduct, obscenity, and fraudulent misrepresentation (Farber). However, if the speech does not fall within one of these categories, there are no grounds for the government to argue that freedom of speech should be restricted because of its harmful content.
While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, the Supreme Court recognizes certain limitations. Categories such as defamation, advocacy of imminent illegal conduct, obscenity, and fraudulent misrepresentation are considered not fully protected by the First Amendment (Farber). However, unless speech falls within these restricted categories, there are no grounds for the government to curtail it based on its content.
The "clear and present danger" test, established by the Supreme Court, delineates the level of threat posed by speech. To restrict speech, it must directly incite lawless action, imply imminent illegal conduct, and demonstrate a strong intention to produce such conduct (Farber). This stringent criterion ensures that only speech presenting a genuine danger is subject to restriction.
Additionally, the Court has imposed regulations on the time, place, and manner of speech for public safety reasons. In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between content-based and content-neutral regulations, ensuring that restrictions are not based on the speech's content but rather on the circumstances of its expression (Supreme Court of the United States).
However, these rules do not limit the actual freedom of speech and are not even upheld if there is no public need for this. However, concerning the content-neutral regulation, it raises many controversial issues. The content-neutral regulation requires a very careful distinction and therefore may sometimes be misinterpreted. There is a raising concern that such regulation may weaken people’s right to participate, especially if the government puts too many restrictions on how the ideas should be voiced. Thus, by analyzing the current issues concerning the First Amendment right to free speech in the United States, I wanted to show the perspective of outlawing this right, and the negative aspects that such outlawing may involve.
While content-neutral regulations aim to safeguard public safety, they raise concerns about potential misinterpretation and infringement on people's right to participate. The careful distinction required by content-neutral regulation may lead to unintended limitations on the expression of ideas. Striking the right balance between public safety and individual freedoms remains a challenge, particularly when too many restrictions may hinder the free exchange of ideas.
Through an analysis of current issues surrounding the First Amendment right to free speech in the United States, it becomes evident that outlawing this right poses negative implications for freedom and democracy. The evolution of freedom of speech, shaped by numerous historical struggles, continues to be a work in progress. Limiting this fundamental right jeopardizes the democratic principles that form the foundation of our society.
Freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment, is not only a constitutional protection but a fundamental pillar of democratic governance. Its role in fostering open competition of ideas, promoting individual self-determination, and ensuring tolerance is paramount. While legal restrictions exist, the "clear and present danger" test maintains a careful balance between public safety and preserving essential rights.
Controversies surrounding content-neutral regulations highlight the ongoing challenge of striking the right balance between safeguarding public safety and upholding individual freedoms. As we navigate the complexities of the modern world, the evolution of freedom of speech remains a crucial aspect of maintaining a robust and democratic society. By respecting and protecting this right, we ensure the continued flourishing of freedom and democracy.
In conclusion, freedom of speech has served as a crucial tool for the right to dissent and the entire principle of democracy in our society. This law has evolved throughout American history and, after numerous struggles, was achieved. The evolution of this law is still in progress; however, the limitation of the basic right to free speech may as well limit our freedom and democracy. Therefore, it should be respected, protected, and continually nurtured to preserve the democratic values we hold dear.
The Vitality of Freedom of Speech: A Comprehensive Analysis. (2016, Apr 01). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/freedom-of-speech-vs-censorship-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
