In the century of democracy, globalization and multiculturalism, people have much wider opportunities that it was a hundred years ago. Freedom, as a right and as a value, has drastically changed the view of society, its pains and needs. As almost a constitution of any country states, “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”, as well as regulative laws provide protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech and thoughts. For example, the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech. . .” (Hunsaker 25-35).
Freedom is the most fundamental duty of every person in the world. Freedom of views and speech is the most important type of interaction as without sharing there would be no history and science at all. Liberty of words shows the power especially in politics or government. Most importantly, everyone has right to think and act without causing harm or authority of any other individual.
The freedom of speech can be defined as the right of a person to express thoughts, ideas, and personal opinions through a desired media without any restrictions, just so long that these actions do not infringe on the rights of another person or national security. Free expression has been entrenched in our hearts as an unwritten law since time immemorial, even before formal recognition by any authority (Ringen 36-39).
However, free expression has also a negative effect on society. Of course the freedom of expression, like every freedom, is linked with responsibility: whoever infringes on the human rights of others with his or her freedom of expression must be held accountable. For example, in 2005 a Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten published a group of cartoons containing satirical images of the Prophet Mahommed. As Islamic communities around the world immediately found out about the issue with the cartoons and it caused many passionate expressions of distress and anger, largely on two grounds: because Muslim belief does not accept pictorial representations of the Prophet and because the fact that the publication associated Muslims with terrorism. Later on, in 2015, a French weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo has been the target for terrorist attack due to the numerous satirical and atheistic controversial Muhammad cartoon publications. As the result, 12 people died and many were injured (Sturges 181-188).
Save Your Time with JetWriters
Get high quality custom written essay just for $10
Ability to think and act accordingly defines humans between other live creatures on the Earth. Nowadays, the level of democracy and wide freedom of speech over the world provides endless opportunities for people to share the knowledge, thoughts and ideas. In fact, mass media is the best instrument for the society to exercise its right to freedom of expression. The idea of a free, independent, plural, and diversified media has become the ideal to be achieved in order to fully ensure the right to seek, receive and impart information.
However, mass media without any regulation can significantly hurt the society. Therefore, media regulation started its development in order to guarantee, promote and protect the right of free expression. In fact, the main mission for regulating mass media and internet should be to protect and deepen the freedom of speech.
However, the freedom of expression can conflict with other basic and human rights. For example, under certain circumstances, the insult or disparagement of a person constitutes a prohibited violation of human dignity. That is why it is important to regulate defamation. Defamation is the publishing of a statement regarding a person’s reputation to the effect that the statement lowers the person in the estimation of right thinking members of the society. The essence of defamation law is actually to control expressions which injure people’s reputation without any justification (Hunsaker 25-35).
To sum up, freedom of speech has many exceptions and is not defined just as it is stated. We have yet to find the perfect medium between freedom and regulation of speech that would be suitable for everyone.
Hunsaker, David M. “Freedom And Responsibility In First Amendment Theory: Defamation Law And Media Credibility”. Quarterly Journal of Speech 65.1 (1979): 25-35. Web.
Ringen, Stein. “Liberty, Freedom And Real Freedom”. Soc 42.3 (2005): 36-39. Web.
Sturges, P. “Limits To Freedom Of Expression? Considerations Arising From The Danish Cartoons Affair”. IFLA Journal 32.3 (2006): 181-188. Web.
Freedom of speech is a person’s right to speak his or her own opinions, beliefs, or ideas, without having to fear that the government will retaliate against him, restrict him, or censor him in any way. The term “freedom of expression” is often used interchangeably, though the “expression” in this sense has more to do with the way in which the message is being communicated (i.e. via a painting, a song, an essay, etc.). The concept of freedom of speech dates back to a time long before the Constitution was drafted, potentially as far back as Athens in 5th or 6th centuries, B.C. To explore this concept, consider the following freedom of speech definition.
Definition of Freedom of Speech
- The right to express your beliefs, ideas, and opinions without the fear of governmental reprisal or censorship.
5th or 6th Century B.C. Ancient Greece
What is Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech is the right afforded to a person to be able to speak his or her mind without fear that the government will censor or restrict what they have to say, or will retaliate against them for expressing himself. People are often confused by this concept, however, thinking that they can say anything that pops into their heads without repercussion. Just because you are allowed to say whatever you want does not mean that you will not suffer consequences as a result – it just means that the government cannot violate your right to do so.
The U.S. has many laws that place limits on speech and other forms of expression, which may be seen as harsh restrictions. These include prohibitions against defamation, slander, copyright violations, and trade secrets, amongst others. American philosopher Joel Feinberg posited what is known as the “offense principle,” which works to prohibit speech that is clearly offensive, or which can harm society as a whole, or a group in particular, such as racial hate speech, or hate speech aimed at someone’s religion.
Different countries have different rules insofar as freedom of speech is concerned, with some countries’ governments becoming more involved than other governments in the affairs of their citizens. Communist countries like China are often in the news for blocking their citizens’ access to the internet, and restricting their ability to both read and express ideas and beliefs of which their government does not approve. Here in the United States, examples of freedom of speech include criticisms against the government, and the promotion of ideas or beliefs that others might find to be controversial. In the U.S., these kinds of statements are allowed, within the constraints of the “offense principle,” or the “harm principle.”
Freedom of Speech Amendment
The concept of freedom of speech came into being in the United States back in the 1780s, when Anti-Federalists, like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, expressed their concerns that the federal government could eventually become too powerful. To keep the government in check, the Bill of Rights was drafted, which gave us, among other guarantees, freedom of speech, as detailed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which can also be considered the Freedom of Speech Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In addition to offering citizens protection from government interference in the expression of their ideas, the Freedom of Speech Amendment also them with the freedom to exercise one’s religion free from persecution. This is known as the Free Exercise Clause. Under this clause, citizens are permitted to adopt any religion they choose, and to take part in the rituals that the religion dictates.
Similarly, the Establishment Clause prevents the government from establishing one official religion that the country’s citizens all must follow. It also prevents the government from developing a preference for, or promoting one religion over another, religion over the lack of religion, or non-religion over religion.
In short, the Constitution guarantees that all people may worship who or how they may, but the federal government has no say in the matter, and may not adopt an official stance. There has been some misunderstanding about this “Separation of Church and State” clause, as it does not prohibit people from expressing their religious preferences in public, but only prevents a governmental entity from promoting any religion over another.
Freedom of the press, which allows publications to print opinions free of governmental censorship, is also permitted under the Freedom of Speech Amendment. Additionally, those who wish to gather in protest against the government are permitted, under the First Amendment, to “assemble peaceably,” which is why protests are permitted on public property, so long as they remain peaceful.
Freedom of Speech Quotes
Throughout time, people have craved, even when it was denied them, the right to freely express themselves. Freedom of speech quotes have survived centuries, to be used again and again, as people fight for this basic human right. What follows are ten great examples of freedom of speech quotes, wherein folks have either defended the policy as is, or have defended the laws that keep freedom of speech in check.
“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” – Noam Chomsky
“Freedom of speech is useless without freedom of thought.” – Spiro Agnew
“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” – Benjamin Franklin
“There has to be a cut-off somewhere between the freedom of expression and a graphically explicit free-for-all.” – E.A. Bucchianeri
“For if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.” – George Washington
“Those who make conversations impossible, make escalation inevitable.” – Stefan Molyneux
“Freedom of speech is a guiding rule, one of the foundations of democracy, but at the same time, freedom does not imply anarchy, and the right to exercise free expression does not include the right to do unjustified harm to others.” – Raphael Cohen-Almagor
“Freedom of speech gives you the right to stay silent.” – Neil Gaiman
“Should freedom of speech include the freedom to tell lies? Who decides what is true and what is a lie? Should the young and impressionable be exposed to propaganda deliberately designed to make them hate others? If we deny the deniers the right to spread their venom, are we then putting our own right to free speech at risk? At which point does hate speech so directly provoke violence that it should be banned?” – Ted Gottfried
“Two things form the bedrock of any open society: freedom of expression and rule of law. If you don’t have those things, you don’t have a free country.” – Salman Rushdie
Freedom of Speech Examples in Legal Cases
More than inspirational freedom of speech quotes, the issue has inspired a number of court cases over the years. Some examples of freedom of expression and freedom of speech cases are discussed below in more detail:
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
In the first case to ever be tried by the American Civil Liberties Union, Benjamin Gitlow had been charged with criminal anarchy, after he printed the “Left Wing Manifesto” in his publication The Revolutionary Age. He defended the piece as being an historical analysis of the concept of communism, rather than acting as an advocate for the system. He was convicted upon the completion of his trial and was ordered to serve five to ten years in prison.
Gitlow appealed the conviction, and his appeal was granted, after he had already served two years at Sing Sing. He was released on bail, only to be re-incarcerated three years later when the Supreme Court upheld the original conviction.
The Court ultimately determined that publication of the “Left Wing Manifesto” was indeed a crime. Despite having served as a leader of the Communist Party in the late 1920s, Gitlow publicly rejected the party in 1939, having become an outspoken anti-communist in 1934, and he remained one of the leading opponents of communism until his death on July 19, 1965.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
In 1969, Ku Klux Klan leader, David Brandenburg, was convicted of criminal act, one of which was advocating “the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.”
This followed his participation in a 1964 Klan rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, which Brandenburg had asked a local reporter to cover. During the rally, Brandenburg made a speech against the government, claiming that the government was “suppressing the Caucasian race.”
The court convicted Brandenburg, fining him $1,000, and sentencing him to one to ten years in prison. Brandenburg appealed, saying that his right to freedom of speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments had been violated. His appeal was denied by both the Ohio First District Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ohio, with the latter flat-out dismissing it without even offering an opinion.
This case led to the establishment of what is known as the Brandenburg Test, which is the standard by which potentially inflammatory speech is measured. Speech can only be prohibited if (1) it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Related Legal Terms and Issues
- Anti-Federalist – A political movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government, and opposed the ratification of the Constitution in 1787.
- Defamation – An intentional false statement that harms a person’s reputation, or which decreases the respect or regard in which a person is held.
- Copyright – A legal device that gives the creator of a literary, artistic, musical, or other creative work the sole right to publish and sell that work.
- Slander – An intentional false statement that harms a person’s reputation, or which decreases the respect or regard in which a person is held.
- Trade Secrets – Designs, practices, processes, commercial methods, techniques, or information that is not generally known by others, which gives a business an advantage over competitors.