FREE SPEECH
Free speech involves the freedom of people to express their ideas and feelings without any fear. Therefore, everyone is allowed to share the thoughts they may have freely without any regulation and doubt. It involves ensuring that people are safe and at peace. Even though people are free according to the first amendment, one is liable for any act committed against the law. Some words spoken may cause either “physical, psychological, or emotional effects on the individuals involved” (Warburton 45). Some may lead to violence in the country or between individuals. Therefore, free speech is not open when it comes to issues of committing crimes such as murder. It leads to restriction of whatever is communicated. When one delivers words that will lead to violence, harm others, child pornography, threats, and others, one will be held liable for them.
Free speech is not open when it comes to threatening because threats disturb the peace of people. Despite people being aware that threatening is a crime, some people continue threatening others just to see the real action to be taken for threatening. Threatening involves a statement that shows that one will use physical force or violence against someone or the people related to an individual in the future. “The first amendment does not protect threats” (Werhan, 78). This speech is not protected because of the following; to protect people from the fear of violence, to prevent the destruction that threat may cause, punish people who communicate words that can cause murder or any other crime before it happens, and prevent people from doing anything that is against their will. Threat causes psychological fear to the person involved, family, or even destruction of some property due to emotional and physical effects are not also considered by free speech and, therefore, the demand for limiting the threatening expression. Threatening speech are so expensive since they may cause the government to use some resources to protect the victim from the threat. Therefore, threatening is not a free speech since it violates the right of an individual to make his own choices.
Obscene materials such as child pornography are not protected in the first amendment because child pornography leads to violence and involvement in sexual activities by children. Child pornography involves the sexual expression of an individual to children engaged in sexual conduct. Despite the fact that free speech gives one chance to express his feelings, child pornography is an offense, and freedom of speech does not protect it. Child pornography has been criminalized because it’s grouped as sexual abuse of the child. Child pornography can be categorized into two; that is, “criminal prohibition on the production, distribution, and possession of anything that may lead children into sexual engagement is a crime, and legal action may be taken” (Cohen 67). Secondly, the ability of the children to view pornography even if it’s on the internet is a crime because it will destroy the mind of the children and activates their desire to practice whatever they see in those pornographies. Hence it’s a crime since it corrupts the child’s morals and their destruction.
Obscene involving adults are also not allowed since it causes people to commit crimes such as rape. Obscene disrupts the peace of people hence living in fear. Despite the freedom of expression for everyone, one I held liable in case of any act of obscene in public. For example, in the United States, the owner of a gay bar in Nebraska was prosecuted for showing the art of gay in a basement. “Despite one having the freedom and the right to carry the choices they make, not everything is free” (Demaske 45). Any action that will cause harm to the society despite one did for leisure one will be responsible for it. Involvement in a sexual act for the adult in public also will cause some immoral behavior in the country as well as to the people surrounding us. Hence, despite the freedom, one should avoid being involved in actions that are wanting and will affect the peace of people in the given country.
Freedom of speech is not allowed on plagiarism and copyrighted materials because it leads to distortion of the main idea of the owner, and it affects one’s right to have control over their properties. Copyright involves when one uses other peoples’ work to express their ideas. It holds on liable for copyright infringement. It means when one uses one or more of the rights exclusive by the copyright owner. Plagiarism involves using another person’s work as if it’s your original idea without recognizing the owner. It leads someone to copyright infringement. Copyright helps the owner to enjoy the rights, such as; “performing the work, distributing the work to the public, displaying it, and even performing it in the audience if it’s audio, and producing and reproducing it” (Warburton 45). Therefore, when one uses this work to express their ideas or even speak without even recognizing the owner of the work is held liable since plagiarism and copyright is not protected in the freedom of speech. Therefore, it’s not free to express your ideas while using other people’s thoughts and even materials in writing; you must recognize them. It refers to the speech presented by others. One should refrain from using other people’s words or documents for his benefits.
Everyone has the right to express what they feel is right and their ideas concerning any subject without any fear. However, people have a reason not to be subjected to false information about their character because it may affect the relationship between them and others as well as concerning their reputations. The fight between the two rights can cause expensive litigation. It causes conflict between the first amendment and defamation. Defamation involves giving false statements of the facts that affect the reputation of the involved individual. Defamation includes both the slander and libel. Libel defamation refers to the written content that is false about something or someone, while slander is the spoken words or oral defamation. It may involve claims such as one has committed a crime or even one has been involved in sexual harassment action, and yet it’s not true. Defamation causes harm to one’s reputation. Therefore, the law of the first amendment does not protect any action of libel, and thus despite the freedom of speech, it’s not free for one to give false witness against someone else. For example, American law and England used to treat libel as a criminal offense rather than civic. People were held liable for any spoken words or the written ones against the king of England and even concerning any colonial leader.
Nevertheless, the first amendment does not apply to private companies since private companies have their own rules and regulations that they come up with. Therefore, using the word free speech to private companies is as using intellectual dishonest in them. The right to freedom of speech does not apply to private companies. It’s because when one comes up with something, comes up with the rules governing it. “The private companies only comply with the constitution only on the issue of criminal offenses” (Gelber and Adrienne 45).
But, something that even the government cannot take any action to the individual the private companies do not tolerate. In most cases, when one is involved in ill speech either against the management, that person may be fired. Many people want to protect their positions; therefore, they cannot speak up their minds or give their opinions. Lack of free speech it’s because jobs in the private company involve the signing of the agreement between the employee and the private company. Therefore constitution is not applicable in making decisions. For example, one has limited power in their communication when they are in another person’s house, and consequently, they make choices of their words. After all, they cannot just speak anything they feel like even insulting the owner because they will be kicked out of the house. Therefore, freedom of speech in private companies is like a nightmare. The government imposes liability on the employer because of the words spoken or written by his employees hence forcing the private employers to regulate its employees’ speech.
Fighting words allows the government to regulate the right to free speech, mostly when it’s likely to cause violence, and fighting words may produce dangers and uncontrollable evil action because of the fighting words. “Fighting words” contains some kinds of punishable motivation: if the speakers deliver some words to cause violence against themselves (in contrast with third parties), which can happen at a shorter period. The conditions involving fighting words involves where an individual speaks words to insult another person directly to find the first reaction of the person he or she is speaking against. That violence is likely to occur immediately. The authority will take action and protect such speech.
The speech will have attained its objective when it causes unfriendly conditions, create uncomfortable situations, or even raises the temperature of an individual. Frequently, the address can be annoying and challenging. “It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.” (Bardes 48). Hence, the reason as to why the freedom of speech does not protect fighting words, even if some subsections are protected against prohibition or punishment thus proves likelihood of causing a clear and present danger of harmful effect to cause people to be sad, annoyed and people being uncomfortable with its effect.
Research shows “It is always a good reason for support of a suggested offender forbidding that it would increase the chances to be an effective way of curbing the consequential offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor and that it is perhaps a necessary means to that end.” Therefore, he proclaims that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately be prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, harming someone is more dangerous than offending someone. Hence, the charges charged will be higher for the person harming others. In contrast, one does not accept legal expenses unless they are based on the harm principle. Because the level to which people may take offense differs or maybe as the result of unjustified prejudice, he gives some recommendations that should be made to implement the principles of attack, including the extent, duration, and social value of the speech. The first action can be refrained at as fast as possible to reactivate the speaker, the level of the affected people, the effect of the harm, and the overall attentiveness of the group as a whole.
Free speech is restricted because of the sensitivity of the information in mind that it may cause harm to others. If the information being shared will bring painful memories to the involved person; therefore, it’s good for one to refrain from speaking them. “It’s necessary causing harm physically but may affect the emotion of the person.” Some information one cannot just talk just aimlessly because of the effect it may cause harm to the other person. For example, social media communication has created some adjustment on the freedom of speech. It’s because some people are using it to pass some sensitive messages without caring about the effect it may cause after that. For example, some have been giving sad news such as death, and maybe it’s out of an accident that is affecting the person involved. “Where some faint because of the shock, and even others suffers health problems such as stroke and even trauma” (Warburton 80). Therefore, people are being restricted from passing such information to the affected people through social media. Still, only the right person should do it in a relaxed manner that won’t cause a significant impact. One is held responsible when involved in passing such information. It’s usually done by the internet sites regulating what can be posted in those sites. That you cannot post or share whatever you feel like but only what is in line with the site agreements.
Free speech is also restricted by power, mostly when people in authority try to hide what they are doing if it’s contrary to the law. The people in power are in a position to oppress the oppositions by silencing their voices on the opinions they are passing. Free speech being the form of expressing one’s opinion, whether in the agreement or while disagreeing with people in power and facing the consequences. “But this is not the truth because of the harsh punishments.
That the oppositions may suffer from the leaders because of disagreeing with their views”(Kersch 89), the freedom is not operating because these people may be forced not to express their opinions and will refrain many people from speaking because of the fear instilled by the ruling party. Only the courageous people who are ready to face all the consequences will stand and express themselves. Some of the oppositions who rise to fight for their freedom of speech end up being involved in the government so that they can just keep quiet and the people in power continue with violation of power without anyone attempting to threaten them or expose their secrets to the public. Therefore, freedom of speech is just freedom without any power; hence no at all enjoyed since one cannot say what they feel like freely.
Despite the freedom of speech, one is still restricted from enjoying this freedom since there is a regulation on commercial speech in support of this. They are compassionate about the words they use to advertise their products. The business people are being restricted to the information they give the consumers about their products. When promoting their products, the information should be accurate and precise. In the case of providing false information during the advertising, they are held liable for those words. The government takes it as a crime because it is considered a violation of consumers’ rights and making their advantages. Therefore, the salespersons from each company cannot just use any word to promote their selling. They should be “well informed about the product they are selling so that to give the right information and avoiding misleading the consumers” (Bezanson 98). Commercial advertising is limited, and the entrepreneurs are responsible for any false advertisement. The government can also restrict it by imposing some interest in commercial advertising; hence, discouraging the entrepreneurs from advertising their products freely without any hindrances. Consequently, there is no freedom of speech in the advertisement market since whatever information to be given about the product is still restricted by the concerned bodies in the government.
People can advise others without any fear only if the word they are using does not cause any effect on others. However, this is not true if the information provided is an incitement to committing an offensive action. When one incites another person to steal or committee suicide, that person is held responsible for the crime committed. There is no freedom of speech also on the words that we share with the others. “When the statement is “clear and presents a danger,” it justifies a law limiting expression” (Bezanson 98). Therefore, when one commits a crime out of the spoken words or information passed to him, that person will be liable. Because the words he speaks causes harm to an individual and violence if the person participates either in stealing and violating other people’s peace. Therefore, people should be compassionate about the message they are passing on to others and but not just being careless on the choice of their words clamming the freedom of speech because one may end up suffering and be punished for their ignorance on their terms.
Free speech does not protect threatening the president of the United States since the public figure deserves all the respect; hence one cannot just throw words to them. According to the law of the United States, “it’s illegal to make any threat upon the life of the president of the United States nor to planning for kidnapping or harm the president.” It may be either in the form of mailing the president or through speaking it out. “The rule also protects the vice president or all the elected people in that order” (Gelber and Adrienne 45). Threatening the president is treated as a political offense. For one speaking, words that threaten the public figure may cause one even deported if he migrates to another country. The person involved can also be imprisoned and fined heavy. Therefore, freedom of speech is not protecting anyone who specks ill words against the president. Thus, free speech cannot be applicable when communicating with the president since he deserves respect.
In conclusion, Free speech isn’t free speech when it comes to things like murder and other folkways. Because all the words were spoken, that can cause harm to other people, and one is liable for them. If one is involved in actions that will cause others to commit the crime or be affected, that person will be charged for those words. Therefore, the freedom of speech is not freely enjoyed, and one should be very sensitive to the words they use while speaking or even on what they put down in writing. Freedom of speech does not apply to the following; in defamation that is in both libel and slander, in child pornography, in commercial addresses and others. The first amendment does not protect any word that causes either committing suicide, affecting the peace of people, cause violation, and any incitement that is not for the order but instead for destruction. Therefore, free speech is just like a proverb or a mere statement because people cannot enjoy it because of the restriction imposed on it.
Works Cited
Bardes, Barbara, et al. American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials 2008. Cengage Learning, 2008.
Bezanson, Randall P. Too Much Free Speech? U of Illinois P, 2012.
Cohen, Henry. Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment. DIANE Publishing, 2010.
Demaske, Chris. Modern Power and Free Speech: Contemporary Culture and Issues of Equality. Lexington Books, 2011.
Gelber, Katharine, and Adrienne S. Stone. Hate Speech and Freedom of Speech in Australia. Federation P, 2007.
Kersch, Kenneth I. Freedom of Speech: Rights and Liberties Under the Law. ABC-CLIO, 2003.
Warburton, Nigel. Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford UP, 2009.
Werhan, Keith. Freedom of Speech: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004.