English/ argumentative paper

Should Free Speech be Free?
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Introduction
The first amendment has coined the right to free speech and freedom of expression for all Americans. However, in the recent years, the idea of free speech has drawn a growing concern on the extent to which free speech should be free. [Background issue] As a consequence, policymakers and researchers alike have advanced varied views on the volatile topic of free speech. Indeed, most of the propositions argue that since speech occurs in a context of competing values, it is vital to place some form of limitation such as banning. [Current state of affairs] Drawing illustrations from two comments regarding Prince Harry’s engagement with American actress Meghan Markle, this paper discusses the idea of free speech and advances an argument that banning online comments will be in discourse with the very fundamentals of freedom of speech.
Discussion
In his research, Van Mill has quoted John Stuart Mill’s idea of free speech. Mill Quotes
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” (Van Mill, 2002, par. 9)
What this evidence implies is that all persons (ALL!) should be granted the fullest liberty of expression to put out their ideas regardless how immoral or impartial they may seem.
However, this free speech should not contain defamatory falsehoods, obscenity, or child pornography-legally referred to as First Amendment value [Negative Case].

For example, in the first comment the remarks, “Am I the only one who’s embarrassed by Prince Harry marrying a hoodrat!”- Clearly, these are racist remarks due to Meghan’s black race. Also, in comment two, “the next generation of British Royals having black African Origins! WTF!”- Also racist remarks.
Consequently, as Van Mill indicates in his research, the government can regulate this kind of speech by the offense principle. Van Mill has quoted the work of Joel Feinberg. Feinberg coins that it is the sole responsibility of the government to regulate offensive conduct. As such, Feinberg argues that the government should assess the extent of damage on of the social content of any offensive speech and also assess the speaker’s intent as well as the number of people it offends (Van Mill, 2002, par. 25) [Supporting Evidence]. On the contrast, Volokh holds a view that it is unsound for the speaker to be punished based on purpose tests which are conducted by a fact-finder. Furthermore, he argues that a fact-finder can be biased since it is not possible to determine the speaker’s purpose since persons interpret the message differently (Volokh, 2016, p.2). [Counter Argument]Therefore, even if such comments like the ones in Prince Harry and Meghans’ video clearly proof to be offensive, it is difficult to judge the purpose of the speakers; hence, banning such comments will be in collision with the very fundamentals of freedom of speech.
Conclusion
Although offensive speech may lead to both intended and unintended consequences, placing a ban on some content of speech will not be justified. Instead, the government should provide education to the public on delivering a thoughtful speech that does not infringe the race, culture, or sexual orientation of other individuals. [Conclusion/claim]
References
Volokh, Eugene. “The Freedom of Speech and Bad Purposes.” UCLA L. Rev. 63 (2016): 1366. Retrieved from: https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Volokh-63-5.pdf
Van Mill, David. “Freedom of speech.” (2002). Retrieved from: https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2013/entries/freedom-speech/