Category: Freedom Of Speech

Freedom of Speech in UK

Every day 9 people are arrested for posting offensive online comments. That’s an 800% increase in the last few years based on Midlothian police statistics. Not only this, but the UK government agreed to squander 1 million pounds creating a new police force, which will arrest people for mean online comments while at the same time they have decreased the police founding. Every year the UK government more and more money into ‘guarding’ the Internet from trolls rather than guarding the streets where gang and knives violence has gone through the roof.

There are many cases of the government arresting or even banning people from the UK for publicly voicing their dissent against them. The most striking case being that of Lauren Southern a Canadian Right-Wing journalist, who was banned from entering the UK under section 7 (anti-terrorist law). She arrested after distributing flyers in Louton saying “Allah is Lesbian, Allah is gay, Allah is queer, Allah is bisexual, Allah is transsexual, Allah is all of us” after a VICE article was released with the title ‘Jesus is gay’. The whole idea behind Lauren’s distribution of flyers was to see the reaction of people when Jesus was substituted with Allah, since the article by VICE wasn’t criticized by anyone. Also, the timing outraged many people since at the same time 400 ISIS members returned to UK.

Another case which angered many people was that of Mark Meechan also known as Count Dankula. Meechan was arrest by the Scottish police arrested him after a video of him was uploaded teaching his girlfriend’s pug to do the Nazi salute while being told “Sig heil”. He did that because his girlfriend found her dog very cute and as he himself said on the video he thought that was the worst thing he could do. When asked in court why he did that he said: “As was already said in the video I don’t have any problems with Jews and I only did that to annoy my girlfriend since a Nazi was the worst thing I could think of”. At the end of the court which took 2 years to complete, Meechan was found guilty of ‘grossly offending’ comment was fined £800.

UK is no stranger to violations on Human rights since two years ago the DRIPA law (Data Retention an Investigatory Powers Act) was ruled unlawful, since it allowed security services to have access to phone and Internet record of individuals even if they weren’t a threat. During the court ruling it was found that DRIPA was used for other purposes that to fight serious crime, it was mostly used by city councils to crack down on issues such as dog fouling and littering, since it was allowed for public bodies to grant themselves access to information without proper independent oversight. Even after that the government spent £2million into a new unit the ‘thought police’. Reminiscing the thought police from George’s Orwell book 1984. The competence of the new unit is going to be investigating offensive comments from the Internet, the unit is going to be supported by an ‘army’ of volunteers reporting whatever they deem inappropriate. After the announcement of the new unit on twitter civil liberties campaigners raised fears that the new unit would stop people from expressing their opinion in fears of arrest and the risk of people that get offended by the least thing will now be able to report that to the police. The most notorious case of over-reaction was when MP Thangam Debbonaire reported Verity Phillips a 20-years old student for telling her “should not get in the sea”, with the reply of the politician being “This person told me to drown – I believe that is a threat to kill”.

UK is already the most surveilled country in the world, there is 1 camera for 11 people but not only that UK is slowly turning to a dystopian totalitarian state. The government is trying to pass bills without anyone knowing, the censorship bill is trying to regulate adult content on the Internet, essentially when you visit adult sites you will be required to verify your age with third-party organization such as mobile phone network or national health service. That’s not all though, this bill is going to be a requirement in all websites even those who are not dedicated to adult content but have some like Reddit. If those websites don’t agree they will be blocked. This means it’s quite likely for plenty of websites with mostly non-graphic content will be blocked thanks to a small amount of that material in their servers. Given that most of those websites are likely to be forums and message boards has serious implications on free speech.

Sources

1. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mark+meechan&oq=mark+mee&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0j69i59j0.2476j0j4&client=ms-android-xiaomi&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
2. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.rt.com/uk/422336-southern-racist-banned-gay/amp/
3. https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/dripa-surveillance-ruled-unlawful
4. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3739348/amp/Scotland-Yard-ploughs-2million-new-thought-police-unit-snoop-web-users-hunt-trolls.html

Informative Essay on Freedom of the Press

The notion that communication and expression through various media, including written and electronic media, especially published information, should be recognized a right to be freely exercised is known as freedom of the press or freedom of the media.

The freedom of the press refers to the ability to criticize the government in the absence of fear of obstruction or punishment from the government, either before or after publication. In the United States, the terms ‘freedom of the press’, ‘freedom of speech’, and ‘freedom of expression’ are frequently used interchangeably, with ‘the press’ largely referring to print and electronic media. The clearest evidence of press freedom is the ability of opponents of the government or government leaders, laws, or policies to publish effective criticisms in default of fear of punishment from the government in the form of fines, imprisonment, or even death. That definition excludes communications that may violate laws of universal applicability, such as the law of fraud, or communications that violate a contract. It also excludes extralegal limitations such as a communicator’s perception of the community’s permissible range of expression or public pressures (including mob action) against the press during times of crisis. The legal definition of ‘freedom of the press’ in the United States begins with the forty-five words of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which was adopted on December 15, 1791: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were then passed by Congress, making it a felony to criticize the federal government or government leaders, among other things. The Historical Context section discusses these short-lived enactments, which sparked bitter party disagreement in the fledgling republic. Freedom of the press fluctuates: it increases during times of peace and decreases during times of war or national disaster, when it is most needed by society.

In short, freedom of the press is critical to the proper operation of a democracy. It is critical for people to be socially conscious of what is going on in the world. One must have the ability to criticize the government; this keeps the administration on their toes and motivates them to do better for the country.

Evolving Notions of Freedom of Speech in Modern Education

In the late 20th century, many public colleges and high schools in America designated areas on their campus as “safe spaces”: areas where students were encouraged to speak any thought free of retribution. Other students could provide feedback, and debate was encouraged. Today, many universities still retain these spaces, and many have labeled their entire campus a safe space; however, their definition has shifted drastically.

A safe space is no longer an area where speakers and their speech acts are protected – the term now refers to safety for the listener. In an attempt to create a “safer” educational environment, many universities have placed bans on comments deemed vulgar, bigoted, or otherwise offensive by administrators. Debates can be shut down in the name of safety rather than encouraged. Colleges that once saw argument as healthy now view it as threatening.

The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that modern public education in America coddles students; through restricting offensive speech and limiting the types of books and media, students can consume while in school, the American education system breeds a population that is unhealthily averse to a disagreement while actually endangering the minority groups it seeks to protect.

Background

First, it’s notable that defending constitutionally protected free speech doesn’t imply the defense of all speech unconditionally. For example, the constitution already makes reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of protests and doesn’t protect against threats or calls to violence: i.e., students are allowed to hold protests, but not in the middle of biology class. Court rulings are currently up in the air, however, on whether or not public schools ought to have a unique ability to restrict speech beyond what is constitutionally protected, i.e., restricting jokes that are deemed racist or comments that could provoke anxiety in a sexual assault victim.

Some court cases have answered yes. For example, the court case of Hazelwood v. Kuhmelier has set a precedent that high school administrators are able to restrict student speech that they find offensive. As a result, public high schools and colleges across America have been notably averse to free but offensive expression in the last decade. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found that in 2016, 49.3% of colleges maintained “highly restrictive” speech codes.

Education

Proponents of in-school censorship and modern, safe spaces argue that schools are designed to be places of learning and that education is stifled if students are offended by things that they see, hear, or read. This argument, however, fails to see the issue from a wider perspective. Students actually learn less if they’re only exposed to a fraction of the entire marketplace of ideas. This is not only because speech restrictions make it harder to uncover the truth but because sensitivity to novel opinions harms the development of ideas.

Books

Speech restrictions intended to serve as a buttress to education frequently work against it. For example, of books banned across American high schools in the last decade, the second most frequent reason cited for their restriction was “offensive language” – primarily the word “nigger” (NCAC, 2016, fig. 1). Frequently restricted classics include Adventures of Huckleberry Finn & To Kill a Mockingbird. The absence of historically relevant books in the classroom can leave students without valuable educational resources.

Internet

Moreover, the even-more-rampant internet restrictions and filters prove equally harmful to the educational environment because they almost always censor information that could be valuable to students. M. Fulgei explains:

Many students already have unfiltered access to the internet at home or on smartphones. The best way to protect students is to expand their media literacy skills and educate them about the potential for harm online . . . Districts and schools with overly vigorous internet filters deprive students of opportunities to build academic skills they’ll need in the future . . . Socioeconomic divides also widen when some populations have unfiltered access to the internet while others, who may not have smartphones or internet access at home, do not.

Trigger Warnings

Professors in a host of American universities are additionally required to provide “trigger warnings” for students prior to discussing any sensitive topics like rape or domestic abuse. This common example of speech compulsion is likewise counterproductive; recent research indicates that “trigger warnings increase peoples’ perceived emotional vulnerability to trauma, increase peoples’ belief that trauma survivors are vulnerable, and increase anxiety to written material perceived as harmful” (Bellet et al., 2018). It appears that speech restrictions and compulsions almost necessarily make the fundamental mistake of believing that a lack of engagement solves problems; the truth is that most issues are best solved through discourse and exposure.

Critical Thought

Speech restrictions tend to be especially dangerous at middle and high school levels because developing children ought to be exposed to a variety of ideas in order to learn to think critically. Information retention is greater when students engage in more critical discourse.

Authoritarianism

Lastly, censorship of speech is always dangerous. Restriction or compulsion of speech is the first step that authoritarian regimes take in order to gain or consolidate power because the language that we use shapes our perception of the state and of morality as a whole. J. Rodzvilla explains:

The art of censorship has always been an act of reduction. It is an art practiced by bureaucrats and authoritarian regimes on work by others to create a pastiche of the larger culture that reflects how those in power want it to be perceived rather than how it is. In America, we have a history of people banning books to deny ideas that are already part of the culture. School boards ban books that involve teen sexuality and drug use in an attempt to deny issues that already exist.

Speech restrictions, in fact, aim to restrict certain ideologies rather than allow engagement with an issue; they’re band-aid solutions to issues that reach far wider than communication. Academic liberty must be valued over sheltering sensitivity.

Discrimination

Proponents of in-school censorship also tend to be especially restrictive of what they call “hate speech.” For example, a handful of colleges will expel you for saying something racist, sexist, or anti-gay – in 2016, Harvard even rescinded offers of admission from 10 students for “sharing joke images in a private group chat on Facebook” (FIRE). The danger of restricting even wildly offensive speech outweighs the increased sense of security; hate speech restrictions are actually used disproportionately against the very minorities they seek to protect and do virtually nothing to stop racism.

Protection

Speech codes are always ideologically motivated, and as such, they tend to be especially harmful to members of perceived tribes who don’t align with their proscribed position. D. Jacobson (2016) explains:

The immunity to racism and hate speech ordinarily given to members of protected groups does not extend to those who fail to espouse progressive positions. On the contrary, they are attacked even more vehemently as traitors, often in overtly racist or sexist terms. Women, minorities, or gays and lesbians who dare to stray from the opinions they are supposed to have—that is, those considered representative of their assigned identity—not only are subject to abuse by the supposedly oppressed campus activists but also forfeit the special protections they would otherwise be granted . . . But whites . . . who “check their privilege” are allowed to speak.

Solvency

Moreover, forcibly shutting up bigots does very little to stop them from actually thinking in racist ways – and this can backfire once students leave campus. N. Strossen (2018) found that racist ideologies are solved almost exclusively through counterspeech and dialogue (p. 24). Furthermore, speech codes fail to actually stop hate speech, both on campus and off campus; some studies have even found that speech codes on campus increase instances of hateful speech off campus (Jacobson, 2016). Solutions to discrimination necessitate the identification of racist beliefs – a task made far more difficult by speech restrictions.

Conclusion

The premise of the safe space mentality is correct: public schools should be places of education and safety. There is scant evidence that safe spaces do anything more than increase student sensitivity, jeopardize the security of free speech, and damage discourse. Speech must be protected unconditionally, foremost in educational environments.

References

1. Bellet, B. W., Jones, P. J., & McNally, R. M. (2018). Trigger warning: Empirical evidence ahead. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psichiatry. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791618301137
2. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). (2019). Spotlight on Speech Codes 2019. FIRE Quarterly. Retrieved from https://www.thefire.org/spotlight/reports/spotlight-on-speech-codes-2019/
3. Fulgei, M. (2017). How Internet Filtering Can Affect Education. Room 241: A Blog by Concordia University – Portland. Retrieved from https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/classroom-resources/how-internet-filtering-affects-education/
4. Jacobson, D. (2016). Freedom of Speech Under Assault on Campus. CATO Policy Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/freedom-speech-under-assault-campus
5. Lenatsch, Z. (2018). 30 Years of Hazelwood: Revisiting the First Amendment Rights of Minors in the Education System During the Social Media Age. Texas State University Digital Collections. Retrieved from https://digital.library.txstate.edu/handle/10877/7815
6. Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (2008). Exploring talk in school: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes. SAGE.
7. National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC). (2016). Book Censorship in Schools: A Toolkit. OCLC. Retrieved from https://www.webjunction.org/documents/webjunction/Book_Censorship_in_Schools_A_Toolkit.html
8. Rodzvilla, J. (2019). Margaret E. Roberts: Censored: Distraction and Diversion Inside China’s Great Firewall. Princeton Univeristy Press. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12109-019-09635-x
9. Strossen, N. (2018). Hate: Why we should resist it with free speech, not censorship. Oxford Univeristy Press.

Preserving Freedom of Speech: Earl Mosley’s Battle for Expression

Chicago’s Controversial Picketing Ordinance

Chicago is a city that made an order prohibition of picketing within one hundred and fifty feet of a school “City ordinance prohibiting all picketing within 150 feet of a school, except peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute.” Earl Mosley, a plaintiff, often picketed Jones Commercial High School in Chicago. He protested against discrimination against African-Americans at the high school. The defendant, the Police Department of Chicago, notified Mosley that if he remained to picket, he would be under arrest.

Violation of the First Amendment: Mosley’s Fight for Justice

Mosley litigated in federal district court, calling for the law as a violation of the First Amendment. The district court discharged the complaint. However, the court of appeals went backward and held the law unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court accepted certiorari. The case was argued on January 19, 1972. The constitutional question is, “Does the Chicago ordinance violate the freedom of speech Clause of the First Amendment?” Mosley stated that this violated his First Amendment, so he filed a suit in federal district court.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

“This ordinance was a violation of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech because it is overly broad.” As said, the district court discharged the complaint; however, the court of appeals went backward and held the law unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court accepted certiorari. “On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the ordinance on its face violated Mr. Mosley’s rights to Freedom of Speech because the ordinance was overly broad.”

The members of the Burger Court had to make the decision, “I understand that the order of appearance is now by requested counsel will be Mr. Barnett first, Miss. Hal second, and Mr. Curry and then Mr. Quinlan, is that correct?”“Chicago argued below that the labor exemption in the ordinance was necessitated by federal preemption of the regulation of labor relations.” The verdict is that the discharge of labor picketing violated the equal protection clause. “….the Court of Appeals to be unconstitutional because overbroad, held violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since it makes an impermissible distinction between peaceful labor picketing and another peaceful picketing.”

Impact and Importance of Freedom of Speech

Mosley obtains a decisive standard from the values of freedom and equality: freedom of speech. He believes that anyone should be able to talk about something they think is wrong and try to fix that by showing their anger. But the Chicago Police are trying to say what he is doing is going to get him to jail; Mosley knows right and wrong and will not let anyone disrupt his protest about black discrimination right outside of school and will also do anything to make it legal.

Mosley’s protest and file suit had an impact; it affected education because he was on school grounds in Chicago at Jones Commercial High School. “The suit was brought by Earl Mosley, a federal postal employee, who for seven months prior to the enactment of the ordinance had frequently picketed Jones Commercial High School in Chicago”.

The picketing has been going on for seven months, which was the most talked about at the high school. “…the Chicago ordinance in protecting that substantial governmental interest from disturbance and distraction, I would hope that this Court would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit…”. The verdict affects education today. There is no picketing with a hundred and fifty feet of a school. Picketing also has to be peaceful and not harm anyone. Picketing is an equal freedom of speech, even on school grounds. In conclusion, the decision was that the discharge of labor picketing violated the equal protection clause.

Freedom of speech is very much needed to make a change. Suppose something is not going as it is supposed to; speak up. No matter how bad the distraction is, power is key in order to make a difference. Many citizens faced a lot of discrimination, such as race, gender, religion, etc. That is not how anybody should be treated, and Mosley did a good job at making a good argument to make this legal. He stood up for blacks and even made a lawsuit saying that the Police Department of Chicago was trying to arrest him for letting his voice out. Helping someone out should not be a crime but a blessing.

References:

1. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. (70-87).

Evolving Perspectives on Freedom of Speech: Navigating Boundaries

Rewriting Amendments

The Bill of Rights is what has given us the right to call our country the land of the free. It ensures we, the people of this country, have freedoms and rights. However, our society is constantly changing, and maybe it is time to rewrite some amendments to ensure that we are adapting to the changes occurring in our country now.

Freedom of religion

Freedom of religion is why some people have come to make our country the place of their new home. The Freedom of religion states that the government cannot force a religion on you; you can be of any religion you desire and practice that religion freely. This amendment is one of the reasons we get to call the United States a country of freedom.

The history of religious freedom more or less began around 1635, with Rodger Williams, who granted anyone that came to Rhode Island religious freedom. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson tried to write a bill to grant religious freedom to all the people who lived in Virginia, but the bill was not passed. On December 15, 1791, the first amendment, which included freedom of religion, was adopted and established.
Freedom of religion has its advantages and disadvantages. An advantage to freedom of religion is that people are able to practice and share their beliefs with people of their religion. Having a group with similarities can provide individuals with a purpose and benefit their mental health. Another advantage to freedom of religion is that they help the less fortunate. Religious charities tend to cater to those in need, and that benefits the population who is less fortunate.

Having the freedom of religion also presents some disadvantages. A disadvantage to freedom of religion is that it is another way for people to separate themselves and create a divide. There have been multiple incidents where people of different religions will create an “us against them” divide due to not having the same religious beliefs. Another disadvantage to religious freedom includes people using their religion as a scapegoat for their misconduct. There are people who commit crimes or misbehave in society and use their religion to justify and save themselves from punishment. Having religious freedom also means people can share their beliefs and opinions with others, and that can cause conflict. For instance, some religions despise the LGBTQ community because it is against their beliefs, and people often get into conflicts because of it.

In the social climate of today, there is a lot of tension between people of different religions. There are people who want to convert others to their religion or shame people who are different due to their religious beliefs, which is why the amendment of freedom of religion should be revised. A possible revision is ‘citizens of the United States may be a part of any religion they desire and practice their religious beliefs, but may not discriminate against anyone of another religion, cause stress, harm, or treat anyone poorly who does not follow their religious beliefs, and may not course others to change their religion.’ This change is necessary so it can give people of the LGBTQ community and other minority groups a chance to express themselves with more freedom without having others harass them because of it.

Freedom of Speech

Some consider freedom of speech an obvious right that should be universal. Freedom of speech is given to citizens to make sure their voices are heard. It allows people to express how they feel verbally. People can agree or disagree with the way our government runs, how they feel about certain issues, and for the most part, anything they want to say. In 1791, freedom of speech was established, but it did not specify what could and could not be considered free speech until later on when child pornography, defamation, plagiarism, and threats, were not considered free speech.

Freedom of speech has its advantages. An advantage of freedom of speech is that people can use their voices to express their feelings and form relationships. Another advantage of freedom of speech is that it lowers the rate of violent conflict; it allows people to express how they feel verbally versus getting physical.

Freedom of speech also has disadvantages. A disadvantage to freedom of speech is that people can receive punishment from society for what they say. For instance, if a person works at a certain store and they go out and talk about how they hate that store, their boss can fire them. Another disadvantage to freedom of speech is that people who disagree with a person and the way they live their life and they can be vocal about it, which may cause people’s feelings to get hurt.

In today’s society, there are a number of different outlets for people to express themselves and voice their opinions. Sometimes freedom of speech can be a positive thing, but sometimes it can be a disadvantage, so in order to fit the changes of the country, a possible change is ‘Citizens of the United States have freedom of speech, but are not able to say anything racist or degrade anyone by saying things that affect them emotionally.’ This change is necessary so it can protect people from being belittled by others.

Right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms is given to citizens of the United States so that they have the opportunity to protect themselves. The right to bear arms was argued over in the cases that went to the Supreme Court for years. It began around the year 1876 when members of the Ku Klux Klan thought African Americans did not have the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court ruled that not every individual had the right to bear arms under the Constitution. There have been many cases since then, and the most recent one was in 2016. The case was a woman against the state of Massachusetts; the state convicted her for having a stun gun to use against her partner, who was violent, saying that arm was not legal to use. However, the Supreme Court ruled that every bearable arm was legal under the Constitution.

The right to bear arms has advantages. An advantage to the right to bear arms is that people can use their arms to protect themselves from anyone or anything that could cause them any harm. Another advantage to the right to bear arms is that it has educated and put awareness of firearms and the safety of their use out to the public.

The right to bear arms also has its disadvantages. A disadvantage to the right to bear arms is that guns can fall into the wrong hands. For example, children and teens can get a hold of guns and use them irresponsibly, such as causing a school shooting, and some can even harm themselves accidentally. Another disadvantage to the right to bear arms is that it can increase the danger; for instance, people can use their weapons to kill others.

There has been extensive research done on gun violence in the United States. Approximately 100 people are killed every day in the United States due to guns, and 66,673 people have been assaulted and killed by guns. In the year 2018 alone, there were 1,594 unintentional shootings. Gun violence in the United States is reaching an all-time high, with school shootings becoming more common, and so are deaths by guns. There are other studies on age and gun violence that have proven that people under the age of 25 cause a lot of violence due to guns. Around the age of 25, the brain becomes fully developed, allowing people to make better choices concerning guns.

Due to the prevalence of gun violence in the United States, there should be a revised right to bear arms that states, “Citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms at the age of 25 but must be licensed, take a test proving they know when it is legal to use their gun, must be screened properly for any mental health issues, and if they live with anyone under the age of 25 or someone without a gun license must have a proper storage area for their arms where the other individuals could not get a hold of their gun.” This change is necessary to ensure that guns are only accessible to people who are responsible and have taken the proper measures to have and use a gun.

References:

1. “6 Pros and Cons of Freedom of Religion.” Bible Study, 8 Jan. 2016, biblestudyfoundation.org/6-pros-and-cons-of-freedom-of-religion.
   Brooks, Chad. “The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms.” LiveScience, Purch, 28 June 2017, www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html.
2. Christensen, Britt. “Why Freedom of Speech Matters – InsideSources.” InsideSources, 12 Feb. 2015, www.insidesources.com/freedom-speech-matters/.
3. “Freedom of Religion.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 7 Dec. 2017, www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-religion.
4. “Freedom of Speech.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 4 Dec. 2017, www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech.
5. Goodman, Paul. “The Pros and Cons of Religion.” Soapboxie, Soapboxie, 22 Nov. 2016, soapboxie.com/social-issues/The-Pros-And-Cons-Of-Religion.
6. “Gun Violence in America.” EverytownResearch.org, 26 Dec. 2018, everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-America.
   Lombardo, Crystal R. “ConnectUS.” ConnectUS, 4 July 2015, connectusfund.org/14-main-pros-and-cons-of-the-right-to-bear-arms.
7. “Past Summary Ledgers.” Gun Violence Archive, 2018, www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls.
   Pontes, Ariel. “Six Facts Free Speech Fundamentalists Love to Ignore.” Medium.com, Medium, 30 Oct. 2017, medium.com/humanist-voices/six-facts-free-speech-fundamentalists-love-to-ignore-8e0daa6fa78b.
8. “Pros & Cons.” Freedom of Speech, freedomofspeech10.weebly.com/pros–cons.html.
9. “Pros and Cons of Free Speech.” Forum23.At www.forum23.at/pros-and-cons-of-free-speech/.
10. Whitley, Rob. “Religion and Mental Health: What Is the Link?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 8 Dec. 2017, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201712/religion-and-mental-health-what-is-the-link.
11. Winkler, Adam, and Cara Natterson. “There’s a Simple Way to Reduce Gun Violence: Raise the Gun Age.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 6 Jan. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/01/06/there-a-simple-way-to-fight-mass-shootings-raise-the-gun-age/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.08d027050ceb.

Exploring the Essence of Freedom of Speech: Controversies, and Social Impact

Understanding Freedom of Speech

This is my essay on freedom of speech, and for those who don’t know what freedom of speech is, it’s the right to speak your mind and the right to freedom of expression, even if it’s offensive. Freedom of speech is also the first amendment which is on the Bill of Rights. In today’s world, no one can get jailed or fined for what they say or write. The past or origin of freedom of speech dates back to a speech by U.S. President Franklin D Roosevelt in 1941 on the 6th of January. He mainly talked about the four different freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom from want, freedom of worship, and freedom from fear.

Rights and Interpretations

We are all fortunate enough to have the freedom of speech; it is given to us as Americans living in the US under the American Constitution. We find the right to speak out and say what we believe in the first amendment of the Constitution. Freedom of speech is taken in a couple of ways; some of these are positive, and some may not have the same positive spin as I was saying earlier. Some people think we can say anything we like, no matter how controversial it may be, without fear of punishment. Some think that freedom of speech only protects speech, whereas some believe it protects art, writing, and any type of expression.

Impacts on Society and Media

Freedom of expression tends to play a huge role for the press and media as it allows different points of view as far as political views, even though they are controversial. Another benefit that comes with this freedom is people can assemble for peaceful protests. This was true in 2017, which is when the LGBT community won the right to same-gender marriage. They had the freedom to celebrate publicly and express themselves. Along with positive opinions on freedom of speech, there is also another side, the con or against freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means we are able to say what we like about others, which can sometimes lead to misleading facts published on the Internet or media. Freedom of speech lets us assemble if we would like for peaceful protests. Although the intentions may be to keep peaceful, it is not uncommon for protests to become violent or lead to a huge political issue. Another issue could be protecting our military; though they do have the freedom of speech, the operation security could be compromised due to this.

Historical Significance of the First Amendment

“The First Amendment played a crucial role in the epic struggles of the civil rights movement of 1950 when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others engaged in sit-ins, protests, and marches to encourage social change.” Without the First Amendment, protesters could not have assembled and voiced their work toward the end of segregation laws. Without the First Amendment, the press would not have been able to report what they believed or wanted to write about on civil rights abuses. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr exercised his First Amendment freedoms by facing arrests multiple times, all because he challenged local officials and tried to push society toward social change. This is why freedom of speech is so important and why I think it’s the most important freedom.

References:

1. U.S. Constitution. Amendment I. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment (Accessed: August 15, 2023).
2. “The Four Freedoms.” Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. https://www.fdrlibrary.org/four-freedoms (Accessed: August 15, 2023).
3. “Freedom of Speech.” American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech (Accessed: August 15, 2023).
4. “Freedom of Expression.” United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/freedomopinion/pages/freedomofexpression.aspx (Accessed: August 15, 2023).
5. “The Importance of the First Amendment.” NewseumED. https://newseumed.org/first-amendment-freedoms/lesson-plan/the-importance-of-the-first-amendment (Accessed: August 15, 2023).