Is America Free?
Introduction.
America is free; we can practice free speech as long as we do not offend other people as per our constitution, but freedom of speech is being threatened, and we need to prevent this. In the prevention of the threats against freedom of speech, there is a need to understand what is actually entailed or accepted under the US speech laws. Despite the censorship of speech laws to protect individuals, groups of individuals, or the United States government, they have been under scrutiny to identify whether it poses harm to others. In the United States, the First Amendment Rights in the constitution provides stipulations for reference in times of controversy. The statute is called into question when other individuals feel the speech is dangerous, offensive, or harmful. Therefore, contrary to the popular opinion on the freedom of speech, there are times when free speech is not allowed in the United States. In a Supreme Court Case of Schenck Vs. United States in 1919, free speech was limited as the court ruled that free speech would not be allowed when it conveyed a “clear and present danger” to the society (Barendt, 2005). The statute on free speech provides restrictions on speech that incite violence, language, or speech freedom that supports terrorism, defamation of character in some instances, freedom of intellectual property, and speech that poses true threats. When these instances occur in a speech, individuals will begin to question if free speech should trump other peoples’ feelings or whether the fundamental right of free speech is inherently more valuable. America is free of speech as long as you follow all the rules you will have that right and freedom.
Freedom of Speech in the United States.
Everyone can voice their opinion freely because we are in America, and that is our right. The freedom of speech in the United States includes various rights to the Americans. Americans have the right of not to speak, right to express their protest of war, the right to even use certain offensive words and phrases in the conveyance of political messages, to advertise commercial products (though with some limitations), among many other forms. However, the statute on free speech prohibits or puts some restrictions on this particular right. The law restricts free speech from messages of incitement that could harm others, speech and messages that make or distribute obscene materials, burning of draft cards as an anti-war protest, advocating for illegal drug use among other prohibitions (Hentoff, 2012).
America is free, given that one can talk and say what one wants and not be punished for it. Despite this freeness, Americans are faced with the obligation not to say or express statements that are restricted by the First Amendment. This is what needs to be scraped off to have an explicitly absolute free America, though a more dangerous state of life. Even though some Americans call for absolute freedom, there are instances of expressions that, if allowed, they limit the overall good of the freedom. Violence incitement and speech propagation of terrorism for example, stands out to be limited, thus providing an overall benefit to the society. Allowing freedom to an extent of infringing the safety of the people falls out of the realms of the freedom of speech (Hentoff, 2012). From the legal frame surrounding the freedom of expression, government does not prohibit its citizens from saying or writing what they want. However, as postulated by the amendment, there is need to have restriction by the government against instances that would rather cause harm than good. Imagine having the freedom to perpetrate violence or terrorism. Naturally, such a right would lead to a harmful effect to the citizens. It is very allowed to have the speech anywhere and voice your opinions on whatever matter of public or individual benefit, though within domains that do not present a “clear and present danger” to the society as famously brought up by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case between Charles Schneck and Elizabeth Baer.
America is not yet free to having groups or clubs to demonstrate what they believe in. For a Free America, people should be allowed to rally in public and voice their opinion even if what they rally about would elicit violence or imminent harm. The question that follows is, if having such system stand out to be morally and ethically right. To the extreme end, this may be allowed, but the challenge posed against this lies with the extremeness of the message. Do extreme groups have the right to free speech? In answering this question, there emerge a moral and ethical issue with regard to freedom of speech. Some Americans oppose restrictions of the statute want an absolute freedom of speech, but the question is, what harm does that have to bring along? Proponents of restrictions on free speech cite harm and imminent danger against other forms of speech. Though some find it right not to have the specified restriction to the statute, it becomes imperative that there should be a way the country has to run within a system that allows sets of intellectual responses on how things should be. It serves to be understood that empowering the government to suppress speech so as not to provoke violent reactions-is far more dangerous (Waldron, 2012). A country where any controversial or provocative speech against a proposed idea is severely punished makes the country a society without controversial ideas, arts, and politics. It would be a country whose citizens fear to express dissident thoughts and would lack an integration of the intellectual market place. America’s shift to put restriction on the freedom of speech based on protection of imminent danger, does not fall short of a society, which the entire aliens to founders of American people, had visualized.
Everyone should practice free speech as we are protected by the constitution. Individuals and groups have the freedom to express anything of their mind in writing or speech as per the United States constitution. However, it also serves dishonest to deny that allowing grossly offensive expressions, either in speech or writing would not exact a high cost to Americans (Shapiro, 2011). Free speech is not free. Having an absolute free speech would posit dangers and result to costs relating to deaths of innocents. Therefore, it should be understandable on why others question the price of adopting an unrestrictive freedom of speech. Opposers of restrictive freedom of speech statute provide that the current government censors or suppresses the freedom of speech, only to use that power unpredictably. For this reason, they provide that we should have an absolute freedom of speech. Having the government put restrictions and prohibitions on the freedom, only allows the government to get influenced in exercising its authority, as politics drive to play in its considerations. This makes it regrettable having the government permit which speech to be permissible.
When the constitution was made, free speech was one of the rights of Americans. Thus it should remain a right to all Americans in all contexts. There is need to have a partial protection of the speech as per the First Amendment statute, to disallow Americans from expressing and speaking content of obscenity. Permitting speeches against and for controversial issues, such as child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that elicits actions of imminent lawlessness, and have an overhaul to permit commercial speech such as that of advertising destroys more than it liberates. Though, such a total freedom would present America as absolute free, it would rather pose looming and imminent dangers to the society. It now falls as a matter of morality and ethics to have restriction of speech. Having free America (with total freedom of speech), would mean having total liberty at the expense of lives of the countries’ inhabitants.
Freedom of speech is listed as the first right in the constitution, giving Americans the freedom to criticize the government and voice out their opinions without fear of being punished. However, these criticisms should not possess what the constitution terms as to have the potential to “cause danger and imminent harm” to the society. Taking an instance where a group of persons circulating fliers or brochures to the public, in urging them to disobey the government; would constitute a violation of the right. Though it should be rightful for anyone to express his or her ideas against the government actions, such methods may result to what the supreme court ruled as unlawful, being an incitement of an “imminent lawlessness action.” The first Amendment’s freedom of speech, not only proscribes most government prohibitions and restrictions on the ability to speak or on the basis of content of speech. It rather, extends its protection against rights to receive information, right to restrict tort liability of individuals for certain specific speeches, prohibits most restrictions of the government or discriminative burdens against speakers, restricting the government against having corporations or individuals speak or finance certain types of speech, which they do not agree. These are the rights that opposers of restrictions to absolute freedom right of expression base their argument.
All Americans should know what their rights are, given the importance it holds for everyone to know. There is need to know the rights, given the likelihood of coming in to a realization of having strayed through the rights. Understanding the Bill of rights as per the United States constitution, would enable an individuals or a group of individuals understand the limits of the rights (Currie, 2013). The limits or restrictions placed in the right of expression serve to restrict “true threats” in three forms; firstly, in protection of individuals from the fear of violence, the second reason is for prevention of disruptions that the particular fear elicited may endanger, and thirdly, in prevention of individuals from coercion to act against their will. Also, the restriction in support against ‘true threats’ serves to incarcerate groups of individuals or individuals who would identify themselves as to likely institutionalize a threatened crime before the crime is perpetrated given the resultant opportunity.
All persons in America can have freedom of speech. The statute on freedom of speech as well the constitutional bill of rights does not discriminate against whatever aspect in the strive of exercising freedom of speech. In deed America is free country (Currie, 2013). The law does not discriminate against color, sex, or religion in matters of free speech. As afore discussed, the legal framework of the country only restricts on the potentiality of harm and not with who expresses. In alignment to a long-desired America, everyone is treated equally and anybody can have freedom to express his or her ideas. Special appreciation to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which, champions freedom of speech against the minority groups in the United States. Politicians, or any person promoting discriminatory messages against minority groups such as the LGBTQs, immigrants, women, children, those of racial differences have been made accountable of hate speech. The free American government has censored to prohibit hostile speech against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender and the queer gender non-conforming people; in response the government provides support to gay rights and thus freedom of speech is restricted to the good of the minorities unlike cause harm to other groups.
The United States government strive to defend all its groups of people no matter how unpopular the minority group is, nor dissuasions from the perpetrators of hate speech. The United States government as well as the ACLU and other human rights organizations disagree sharply with homophobic or racist speeches and messages. Every person has the right to put forth his or her ideas with respect to actions taken against them or others by the government. For example, both expressions for and against same-sex marriages, immigration laws, women rights and so on have been witnessed and are allowed from any angle. That is the free America we have. Freedom of speech is also protected in the United States from attack to religious groups. The government has allowed free speech with respect to anti-abortions, and those for abortions in women, has allowed free expression from doctors to patients against dangers of abortion and as well as the legality of the abortion. These instances suggest the free America. Despite the limitations in place against freedom of speech, the country presents a free world of expressions, given that the restricted forms only cause harm to endanger others.
All American from baby to seniors can voice their freedom of speech. According to the bill of rights, the civil rights and liberties of expression is guaranteed to everyone (Currie, 2013). This follows the various ruling in favor of college students over freedom of expression with respect to the administration activities and decisions as well as school’s politics. You can be a child and voice your opinions and ideas to school’s management, parents, or to anybody. There is actually no minimum age limitation from exercising the freedom of speech. America has achieved a highly significant level of freedom that any adult may be able express his or her opinions even at (Pujol, 240-254) work places without any fear. The underlying point of concern is, America is free from restraining its citizens from relaying their ideas, or grievances.
The United States system is developed on the idea that open and free exchange of ideas advances truth seeking, encourages understanding, and allows rebuttals of falsehood. The country seems to be working very well and freely, through its view on freedom, such that the best way to counter falsehood and offensive speech is never by banning or infringing the rights of speech but rather through permitting more speech and ideas from the people. The United States’ constitutional protection of freedom of speech, encompasses notions that people’s ability to express freely without fear being of punishment by the government releases some form of liberty and autonomy that promote the good governance America exercises today. The government is left to present more transparent activities and ideas for a stable society, given the right that supports counter proposals from the citizens or the affected groups.
History has provided that restraining of free expression doesn’t advance democracy (Barendt, 2005). The drafters of the American constitution did recognize that forbidding citizens from speaking their mind concerning certain resultant issues would force citizens to speak about them secretly, which would otherwise elicit more adverse repercussions against the government. The First Amendment thereby, promotes not only transparency, but also social stability. The unrestricted public opinions and debates forces newer, better, or more inclusive ideas into the intellectual market place. The government or authorities’ ideas are left to compete with those freely expressed by individuals or constituent groups. There are high chances that setting up a national environment that these ideas freely compete, there could easily result into having offensive idea give way to better ones. Even though these rights and freedom depict a free America, freedom of speech is not absolute in the United States.
The hindrance of not having an absolute freedom of speech stems from the First Amendment rule that people can practice freedom of speech anywhere as long as they don’t offend, harm, or endanger others. The statute and the constitutional bill of rights allows the United States citizens to express their views anywhere but should not offend or threaten people. Free speech is restricted by law from messages of incitement that could harm others, speech and messages that make or distribute obscene materials, burning of draft cards as an anti-war protest, advocating of illegal drug use among other prohibitions. Statements of imminent threats as well such as those with messages of murder or killings fall outside the realm of the free and unrestricted expression.
The constitution puts forth that any violation of freedom of speech is punishable by law. That is, given the vast allowances for people to exercise their free expression right, they stand to be punished if the set limitations on certain categories of speech are surpassed. Any person in perpetration of obscenity, incitement of violence and lawless actions, and other violation of the freedom of speech statute in the name of exercising their right are subject to punishment and lose of their freedom. This is in line with the aforementioned statement that the United States free speech statute does not put forth an absolute freedom with regard to speech.
Conclusion.
In conclusion, America is free of speech as long as you follow all the rules you will have that right and freedom. However, if you offend someone that freedom will be taken away and will be punished. As with everything there are rules and laws and we need to obey them to be able to live happily and freely. In general, the United States is a free country, people are allowed to express their opinions and ideas. However, the country stands firm against hate speech and expressions that perpetrate violence. Also, the country remains in cognizance of the unpopular groups or minorities and thus sensitive to in stablishing a very inclusive society, with freedom from any kind of person, young, to the seniors, minorities to superiors as to have equal rights before the law in matters of airing their views, ideas, opinions, or grievances. The essay herein has successfully explored the America’s practice of free speech and identified exceptional areas of the statute that would otherwise lead to punishment and denial of the freedom, thus agreeing on the need to prevent any threat against freedom of speech.
Works Cited
Barendt, Eric. Freedom of speech. OUP Oxford, 2005.
Hentoff, Nat. First Freedom. Delacorte Books for Young Readers, 2012.
Shapiro, Martin. Freedom of speech: The Supreme Court and judicial review. Quid Pro Books, 2011.
Waldron, Jeremy. The harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press, 2012.
Currie, Iain, and Johan De Waal. The bill of rights handbook. Juta and Company Ltd, 2013.
Pujol, Jordi. “The United States safe space campus controversy and the paradox of freedom of speech.” Church, Communication and Culture 1.1 (2016): 240-254.