Speech, Pages 3 (610 words)
“This House thinks that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict flexibility of speech.” In my opinion, Flexibility of speech has actually had more of an unfavorable effect in our society than a positive one. The federal government needs to produce laws that allow freedom of speech however permit it to a certain extent. Do you think the government should limit flexibility of speech? If so, what are some ways you would assist the situation? The federal government should have the ability to sometimes restrict flexibility of speech for many reasons.
I will be elaborate on the following: flexibility of speech comes with limitations; freedom of speech triggers problems and freedom of speech has actually never ever been absolute. I believe flexibility of speech comes with limitations. In numerous methods it provides us the option to voice are viewpoints however, still does not give us full complete power over what we say. In the post “When can faculties?” by Mitch Smith it discusses a sociology professor speaking her viewpoint.
Teacher Jamie Rate voiced her opinion on a situation in class. While speaking her viewpoint she also revealed specific videos to prove her point.
Teacher Jamie cost was fired on the charges of improper speech and conduct in the class. In my viewpoint she was charged for speaking her opinion in the class. In this case, if the government limited liberty of speech laws than I think this would not have actually occurred. In the post it states “Jamie had actually revealed other documentaries and videos with the very same content to prove her point to trainees.
Meaning, she had actually done this in this past. If we let the federal government restrict a few of our freedom of speech laws, this professor could have still had a task. I also think that freedom of speech causes issues.
Although being able to voice your voice is beneficial in many ways, it stills causes problems in our society. An example of my claim can be found in the article “Chick-fil-A Controversy” by Robert Thomas. The article talks about how the CEO of Chick-fil-A spoke his opinion on gay marriage and got attacked about it. It started as someone voicing their opinion on a situation but, turned into something bigger. There are many other cases similar to this one. Someone will voice their personal opinion on a situation and then get judged on speaking their opinion. Although it’s
great to voice your opinion, it still causes a lot more problems than you would think for a “so-called” positive thing. Last, I believe that freedom of speech has never been absolute. Although we can have and voice our opinions, there are still things we aren’t allowed to say. This includes freedom of speech that incites immediate violence and commercial speech. So, if the government restricts the freedom of speech rights we have, then we would probably have a lot less incidents on freedom of speech. In the article “Freedom of speech was never absolute” by Thomas Dickerson goes more in depth with my theory.
The article manly talks about, how freedom of speech has never been absolute. In Thomas’s opinion, absolute freedom of speech means slandering others, making terrorist attacks ext. Meaning, we will never have absolute freedom of speech rights. There are many possible solutions for this problem. One I recommend is creating new freedom of speech laws. If our government came together and made laws that allow us to voice our opinion but still have some restrictions. A course of action that needs to be taken would be combining freedom of speech laws and making them into one whole document.