Boldly Committed to Truth Telling in the False Face of Fakery
Limitations on Freedom of Speech
Sabe Wilis is a writer currently working on various projects. You can see his works at sabewilis.tumblr.com.
Censorship is define as the act of controlling or limiting the speech and expression of citizens. The issue over where freedom of speech ends sparked an ongoing debate at its creation, bringing rise to varying interpretations; this discourse is ironically a product of free speech. Some nations invoke stringent laws restricting the speech and expression of their constituents, these actions are mostly condemned by western civilizations. In most countries, censorship exists but does not play a major role citizens' daily lives. Freedom of speech creates a discourse that calls for creation of new and better ideas, bringing innovation to society; the best example being the Enlightenment era when some of the best philosophers in history flourished. Protecting this liberty is not only beneficial to society as a collective, but is also a right endowed to all people. Censorship is only appropriate under extreme circumstances where the rights of others are infringed upon.
The right to free speech is a natural right, and should be treated as an unalienable sacred right for all. People have the right at birth to speak and express their thoughts as they please, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others. John Locke, seventeenth century enlightenment philosopher, viewed freedom of speech as a part of the natural rights; life, liberty, and estate. The philosophy of John Locke was a great influence on the authors of the Constitution, using many of Locke's ideas when establishing the principles of the United States government. He focused mainly on how the government should interact with its people, setting the standard for democracy in the modern era (Salton 71). Locke argues that limiting free speech is a violation of the right to autonomy and self-governing for all people. People have the right to determine their personal actions and to make their own decisions, telling people what they can and cannot say limits their autonomy (Yong 392-394). Additionally, censorship infringes on John Locke's natural right theory; a set of rights given to all people at birth. Censorship restricts citizens from living their life as they choose, which destroys the individuality of people.
Censorship proponents will argue that censorship on government criticism is important to protect the people from instability due to public outcry. Political revolts start from massing criticism of the government, causing much distress throughout the country. By censoring comments on the government, maintaining order within the country will be easier and more stable. Censorship also protects safety by preventing citizens from leaking government secrets, the exposure by which can cause trouble and civil unrest for the government (Burnett). An example of this is Edward Snowden in 2013 disclosing numerous classified NSA documents which detailed a sophisticated international surveillance program. This caused growing distrust in the government, the federal government claims that the leak has harmed national security. Outrage toward the government is a normal part of a free society; when people have the right to express discontent, they will speak their minds. The citizens expressing discontent for their government invokes the change they want; the democracy survives and improves by maintaining the people's power. Governments should serve the people, not act against them, because a democracy's power is derived from the people. Freedom of speech and expression allows the people to preserve this power in government.
Freedom of speech promotes a better society by eliminating the censorship of ideas or expression of important issues. When people are allowed to freely discuss ideas, new and better ideas are likely to emerge. In the Enlightenment Era, free speech flourished in meeting places such as coffeehouses, creating an environment of rationalism where thinkers shared new ideas; intellectuals would gather at coffeehouses, and binge-drink coffee as they discuss philosophy. This culture perpetuated Enlightenment philosophy, giving us the ideas on government we have today (Calhoun 7). Places like these rely on freedom of speech to be effective; fostering free speech accelerates the emergence of better ideas.
A common counter-argument to free speech is that offensive language should be censored as it may offend others; and offensive speech does not need to be protected because it promotes intolerance. Instances of this logic applied has been on the rise, with cases such as people demanding the ban of the controversial "Draw Muhammad Day", or censoring ads opposing same-sex marriage at the forefront. Though these cases did not have the best of intentions, the groups engaging in "offensive behavior" were within their rights to do so. The reason for censorship is to protect others, particularly minorities, from things offensive or harmful (Tunehag 77). However, freedom of speech is designed to protect the speaker from censorship, not the listener from hearing things they may find unpleasant (79). Though the time has changed, the principle benefits of free speech remain the same; it allows new ideas to emerge. Censorship of any capacity or form causes a disruption in the expression of ideas due to fear of an unintentional violation. An example of this is Hong Kong, which does not have any explicit censorship laws, but a culture promoting self-censorship. Hong Kong journalists actively censor their reporting due to political, commercial, or social pressures (Skidmore 143). Jim Sciutto, a former journalist of Hong Kong, described self-censorship as "...nearly an epidemic in Hong Kong... A free Hong Kong press is already eroding" (144). A similar issue has the potential to emerge with further endorsement of censorship culture. Promoting intolerance of other cultures is not a good thing, however it is the duty of society to defeat these ideas with better ones; the solution is not to censor criticism.
Freedom of Speech is a founding tenant of the United States government, existing as a fundamental liberty to protect the other freedoms given to citizens. This right exists to prevent the censoring of ideas others do not like, provided the speech is non-injurious. The framers of the Constitution viewed freedom of speech as an important right, viewing it as a natural right to protect the people against government tyranny (West 319-320). The founding fathers were in a general consensus that freedom of speech should protect all speech not directly harmful. James Madison, for example, once argued that speech is a property right, stating, "...a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them" (321.) Madison, a strong supporter of the First Amendment being ratified, is stating that citizens have the right to speak freely without the risk of being censored. Now, some may argue that the Constitution is a living document, one that must be interpreted to fit the needs of the time; thus the First Amendment does not need to be interpreted literally. The United States has people from many cultures, so we need speech codes to prevent disruption and maintain order. The issue with this argument is that the United States has always been an incredibly diverse country. The colonies were, obviously, comprised of immigrants from various parts of Europe, later including migrants from around the world. An incredible amount of diversity has always been an aspect of the United States.
Freedom of Speech is the most essential right that needs to be protected impartially for all people. This right allows people to freely speak, fostering the growth and development of new ideas. Free Speech is important for the continuation of a democratic society, as well as continuing an open and accurate media. This liberty must not be limited further, as doing such violates the natural right of individuals.
Work Cited
Balter, S. J. "The Search for Grounds in Legal Argumentation: A Rhetorical Analysis of Texas vs Johnson." Argumentation 15.4 (2001): 381-395. ProQuest. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Burnett, Dean. "Why government censorship [in no way at all] carries greater risks than benefits." The Guardian. 22 May 2015. Web. n.p. 26 Nov. 2015.
Calhoun, Craig J. Habermas and the Public Sphere. MIT Press, 1992. Google Books. Web. 14. Dec. 2015.
Decew, Judith Wagner. "FREE SPEECH AND OFFENSIVE EXPRESSION." Social Philosophy & Policy 21.2 (2004): 81-103. ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Horton, John. "Self-Censorship." Res Publica 17.1 (2011): 91-106. ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
King, Gary, and Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression." American Political Science Review 107 (2013): 1-18. ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Mello, Jeffery A. "Balancing Hate Speech, Professional Ethics, and First Amendment Rights: A Case of and from the Judiciary." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 18.1 (2006): 21-28. ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Salton, Herman T. "A Stroke of Genius? Religion, the Founding Fathers and the Creation of the American Polity." Public Administration Research 2.1 (2013): 67-75. ProQuest. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
Skidmore, Max J. "Censorship: Who needs it? How the conventional wisdom restricts information's free flow." Journal of Popular Culture 35.3 (2001): 143-156. ProQuest. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Smith, Rodney K. "James Madison, John Witherspoon, and Oliver Cowdery: The First Amendment and the 134th section of the Doctrine and Covenants." Brigham Young University Law Review 2003.3 (2003): 891-940. ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Tunehag, Mats. "Freedom of Speech or Freedom from Hearing?" Sfera Politicii 19.7 (2011): 77-82, 96. ProQuest. Web. 1 December 2015.
West, Thomas G. "Free speech in the American founding and in modern liberalism." Social Philosophy & Policy. 21.2 (2004): 310-384. ProQuest. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
Yong, Caleb. "Does Freedom of Speech Include Hate Speech?" Res Publica 17.4 (2011): 385-403. ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Go Back
Censorship is define as the act of controlling or limiting the speech and expression of citizens. The issue over where freedom of speech ends sparked an ongoing debate at its creation, bringing rise to varying interpretations; this discourse is ironically a product of free speech. Some nations invoke stringent laws restricting the speech and expression of their constituents, these actions are mostly condemned by western civilizations. In most countries, censorship exists but does not play a major role citizens' daily lives. Freedom of speech creates a discourse that calls for creation of new and better ideas, bringing innovation to society; the best example being the Enlightenment era when some of the best philosophers in history flourished. Protecting this liberty is not only beneficial to society as a collective, but is also a right endowed to all people. Censorship is only appropriate under extreme circumstances where the rights of others are infringed upon.
The right to free speech is a natural right, and should be treated as an unalienable sacred right for all. People have the right at birth to speak and express their thoughts as they please, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others. John Locke, seventeenth century enlightenment philosopher, viewed freedom of speech as a part of the natural rights; life, liberty, and estate. The philosophy of John Locke was a great influence on the authors of the Constitution, using many of Locke's ideas when establishing the principles of the United States government. He focused mainly on how the government should interact with its people, setting the standard for democracy in the modern era (Salton 71). Locke argues that limiting free speech is a violation of the right to autonomy and self-governing for all people. People have the right to determine their personal actions and to make their own decisions, telling people what they can and cannot say limits their autonomy (Yong 392-394). Additionally, censorship infringes on John Locke's natural right theory; a set of rights given to all people at birth. Censorship restricts citizens from living their life as they choose, which destroys the individuality of people.
Censorship proponents will argue that censorship on government criticism is important to protect the people from instability due to public outcry. Political revolts start from massing criticism of the government, causing much distress throughout the country. By censoring comments on the government, maintaining order within the country will be easier and more stable. Censorship also protects safety by preventing citizens from leaking government secrets, the exposure by which can cause trouble and civil unrest for the government (Burnett). An example of this is Edward Snowden in 2013 disclosing numerous classified NSA documents which detailed a sophisticated international surveillance program. This caused growing distrust in the government, the federal government claims that the leak has harmed national security. Outrage toward the government is a normal part of a free society; when people have the right to express discontent, they will speak their minds. The citizens expressing discontent for their government invokes the change they want; the democracy survives and improves by maintaining the people's power. Governments should serve the people, not act against them, because a democracy's power is derived from the people. Freedom of speech and expression allows the people to preserve this power in government.
Freedom of speech promotes a better society by eliminating the censorship of ideas or expression of important issues. When people are allowed to freely discuss ideas, new and better ideas are likely to emerge. In the Enlightenment Era, free speech flourished in meeting places such as coffeehouses, creating an environment of rationalism where thinkers shared new ideas; intellectuals would gather at coffeehouses, and binge-drink coffee as they discuss philosophy. This culture perpetuated Enlightenment philosophy, giving us the ideas on government we have today (Calhoun 7). Places like these rely on freedom of speech to be effective; fostering free speech accelerates the emergence of better ideas.
A common counter-argument to free speech is that offensive language should be censored as it may offend others; and offensive speech does not need to be protected because it promotes intolerance. Instances of this logic applied has been on the rise, with cases such as people demanding the ban of the controversial "Draw Muhammad Day", or censoring ads opposing same-sex marriage at the forefront. Though these cases did not have the best of intentions, the groups engaging in "offensive behavior" were within their rights to do so. The reason for censorship is to protect others, particularly minorities, from things offensive or harmful (Tunehag 77). However, freedom of speech is designed to protect the speaker from censorship, not the listener from hearing things they may find unpleasant (79). Though the time has changed, the principle benefits of free speech remain the same; it allows new ideas to emerge. Censorship of any capacity or form causes a disruption in the expression of ideas due to fear of an unintentional violation. An example of this is Hong Kong, which does not have any explicit censorship laws, but a culture promoting self-censorship. Hong Kong journalists actively censor their reporting due to political, commercial, or social pressures (Skidmore 143). Jim Sciutto, a former journalist of Hong Kong, described self-censorship as "...nearly an epidemic in Hong Kong... A free Hong Kong press is already eroding" (144). A similar issue has the potential to emerge with further endorsement of censorship culture. Promoting intolerance of other cultures is not a good thing, however it is the duty of society to defeat these ideas with better ones; the solution is not to censor criticism.
Freedom of Speech is a founding tenant of the United States government, existing as a fundamental liberty to protect the other freedoms given to citizens. This right exists to prevent the censoring of ideas others do not like, provided the speech is non-injurious. The framers of the Constitution viewed freedom of speech as an important right, viewing it as a natural right to protect the people against government tyranny (West 319-320). The founding fathers were in a general consensus that freedom of speech should protect all speech not directly harmful. James Madison, for example, once argued that speech is a property right, stating, "...a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them" (321.) Madison, a strong supporter of the First Amendment being ratified, is stating that citizens have the right to speak freely without the risk of being censored. Now, some may argue that the Constitution is a living document, one that must be interpreted to fit the needs of the time; thus the First Amendment does not need to be interpreted literally. The United States has people from many cultures, so we need speech codes to prevent disruption and maintain order. The issue with this argument is that the United States has always been an incredibly diverse country. The colonies were, obviously, comprised of immigrants from various parts of Europe, later including migrants from around the world. An incredible amount of diversity has always been an aspect of the United States.
Freedom of Speech is the most essential right that needs to be protected impartially for all people. This right allows people to freely speak, fostering the growth and development of new ideas. Free Speech is important for the continuation of a democratic society, as well as continuing an open and accurate media. This liberty must not be limited further, as doing such violates the natural right of individuals.
Work Cited
Balter, S. J. "The Search for Grounds in Legal Argumentation: A Rhetorical Analysis of Texas vs Johnson." Argumentation 15.4 (2001): 381-395. ProQuest. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Burnett, Dean. "Why government censorship [in no way at all] carries greater risks than benefits." The Guardian. 22 May 2015. Web. n.p. 26 Nov. 2015.
Calhoun, Craig J. Habermas and the Public Sphere. MIT Press, 1992. Google Books. Web. 14. Dec. 2015.
Decew, Judith Wagner. "FREE SPEECH AND OFFENSIVE EXPRESSION." Social Philosophy & Policy 21.2 (2004): 81-103. ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Horton, John. "Self-Censorship." Res Publica 17.1 (2011): 91-106. ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
King, Gary, and Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression." American Political Science Review 107 (2013): 1-18. ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Mello, Jeffery A. "Balancing Hate Speech, Professional Ethics, and First Amendment Rights: A Case of and from the Judiciary." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 18.1 (2006): 21-28. ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Salton, Herman T. "A Stroke of Genius? Religion, the Founding Fathers and the Creation of the American Polity." Public Administration Research 2.1 (2013): 67-75. ProQuest. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
Skidmore, Max J. "Censorship: Who needs it? How the conventional wisdom restricts information's free flow." Journal of Popular Culture 35.3 (2001): 143-156. ProQuest. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.
Smith, Rodney K. "James Madison, John Witherspoon, and Oliver Cowdery: The First Amendment and the 134th section of the Doctrine and Covenants." Brigham Young University Law Review 2003.3 (2003): 891-940. ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Tunehag, Mats. "Freedom of Speech or Freedom from Hearing?" Sfera Politicii 19.7 (2011): 77-82, 96. ProQuest. Web. 1 December 2015.
West, Thomas G. "Free speech in the American founding and in modern liberalism." Social Philosophy & Policy. 21.2 (2004): 310-384. ProQuest. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.
Yong, Caleb. "Does Freedom of Speech Include Hate Speech?" Res Publica 17.4 (2011): 385-403. ProQuest. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
| Tillis: Census Should Include All North Carolina Soldiers And Marines | Plight, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics | Report From Nader Group Calls I-77 Project ‘Boondoggle’ |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
