Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech. This paper is a presentation of the general and detailed definition of the freedom of speech in the United States. It allows people to speak out whatever they like, anywhere, the words they utter might be right or wrong. Therefore some restrictions and prohibitions help the government use to avoid hate speech and also incitement by various speakers. Freedom of speech is can as well be used to mean a free speech or right to self-expression of one’s ideas. Any country in which there is democracy upholds the freedom of speech. However, the constitution of the United State clarifies the type of statements that are protected or restricted by the law. Freedom of speech enables citizens of a particular country to question the government and the formula they apply to implement their policies. Since it’s their right to ask, they are not victimized or threatened when they challenge the government. Freedom of speech also gives them a platform on which to express their opinions and ideas on how better they can be governed. I have taken into consideration the constitution, what the law says regarding the freedom of speech and the law cases related to freedom of expression.

Keywords include:
Freedom of speech
Government
Leadership
Law
Court

Freedom of speech
The history of freedom of speech describes the evolution and the path the human rights have taken over several years before arriving at the present state. A scientist who narrates the development of human beings argues that language distinguishes human beings from all other creatures.

There are very old theories that try to explain the origin of the word, but it’s said that the human language has existed for over a hundred thousand years. The human language completes the communication series in various ways, either orally or verbal speaking and written language. It’s through language that people present their opinions and ideas to the relevant authorities or other parties who are the audience.
To better understand the freedom of speech we take into consideration what happens in the USA. The primary purpose of the first amendment is to protect the freedom of speech for the citizens. The Bill of rights in the United States contained the first amendment which came into use on 15th December 1791. This bill of rights includes freedoms of assembly, worshiping and speech all protected by the constitution. The first amendment is not specific to the meaning of freedom of speech. The courts have the responsibility of clarifying what type of speeches gets and do not get constitutional protection. The primary objective of the first amendment is to guarantee people their freedom to the expression of ideas and sharing of information. The freedom of speech covers all means communication including artwork, visual and speeches. People can now express themselves without limitations from the government.
The first amendment of the United States constitution upheld or cherished several values that would make the citizens live a better life. The amendment was designed to protect the freedom of speech since then the court had the responsibility of determining what speech deserves protection and restrictions. The law though does not protect the following speeches. Obscenity and Defamation, the law sets out punishment for the abused liberty especially by the press. The public needs protection from the spread of rumors or wrong information. Defamation also involves committing certain public offenses or personal injury due to utterance, writing or showing defaming videos. Sedition is also not protected or catered for under the first amendment. The law provides that always the government cannot be rendered helpless by certain principles in case certain individuals intend to overthrow the government. Any acts or form of speech intended to overthrow the government are not protected under the first amendment. Under the first amendment, fighting words are also not protected; any form of speech that is likely to influence people’s emotions negatively is unlawful. Such words that interfere with the peaceful coexistence are taken as abuse of the freedom of speech. Words that might cause panic when addressed to certain group of people at any time are punishable in a court of law.
I have been studying the constitution of the United States throughout my course; the laws governing the freedom of expression are classified in various types. The Supreme Court has separated a number of laws that are meant to restrict public speeches. Some laws consider the content of the speech. The speeches undergo scrutiny to understand their validity. For example the decision on “Legal Services Corp. V Velazquez of 2001” case, the American high court ruled that resources and grants of the government cannot be applied to facilitate discrimination against certain viewpoint advocacy. Apart from considering the content time and the place where the speech is made is considered. Here the court will ask questions to find out the correlation between the manner of speech presentation and time not forgetting the place. Under some circumstances freedom of expression is limited within certain boundaries like the free speech zones. These areas might be enclosed, fenced or set aside for certain speakers it all depends on the type of speeches they have.
I have come across several court cases in the United States on political issues. For example Talley v. California of 1960 outlawed the distribution of anonymous pamphlets in Los Angeles. However Justice Hugo had a contrary opinion because he believed the move would interfere with the freedom to distribution of information to people.
The freedom of speech is closely related to the words of the mouth or written words; however, it also protects certain symbolic speeches. Symbolic speeches are speaking actions, actions that are the pure expression of ideas. For example Gregory Johnson from Dallas, United States burnt a flag during Republican convention to protest against the leadership of Reagan.
According to the first amendment, there are instances when the freedom of speech remains limited. The changes state that the following forms of expression lack the protection. They are; threats or hate speech, defamation or insults towards an individual, plagiarism or copy-pasting any copyrighted materials and finally showing obscene videos like pornography. Speech that is intended to incite people or encourage them to commit a crime is not protected by thee freedom. The Supreme Court ruled several cases in the year 1919 that helped them draw lines and boundaries of free speech. Immediately after the United States entered into the world war, Congress approved the Espionage Act of 1917. This has been meant for military operations and recruitment process from the public interference. Charles Schenck was once arrested after he organized the distribution of fliers requesting the youths to dodge the Espionage act draft. According to the high court resisting the draft endangered the national security. About that the court supported his conviction, the court also created and set up standards of the instances in which the government can limit the freedom of speech. More arrests were made under the espionage act, Eugene Debs an activist of the socialist party through a public address urged people to avoid joining the military. Despite his argument that he had the freedom of speech and that Espionage act was not constitutional the court upheld the constitutionality of the 1917 Espionage act.
The freedom of expression and opinion is open to the members of the public, but the law comes in between to ensure there is some balance. The bill also assists in providing that nobody misuses the freedoms by mistreating others or discriminating people in whatever aspect. These laws exist to protect the society against incitement; it also protects individual’s integrity by ensuring false facts are not attached to their names. The constitutions offer that protection through Defamation act of 2005 and the Anti-discrimination act of 1991.
The freedom of speech also helps people to communicate their grievances in cases whereby the governments fail to meet their demands. Various groups go out in the street and hold a protest and listen to the public speeches made by the activists to tell what precisely the affected units are going through. They are allowed to criticize the government and tell the truth about everything that is pressuring them. It’s during such gatherings that the groups reveal more about their opinions and exactly what they want the responsible bodies to do for them to be satisfied. The freedom of speech guards them to say anything they feel like as long as they don’t defame certain individuals or incite the public towards violence. The freedom of speech also helps individuals to plead for their guilt in a court of law when convicted with various issues.
Freedom of speech in schools is also protected in the United States after the 1965 incidence whereby students in high school wore black armbands; which was a silent protest to show that they were not supporting the Vietnam War. The school principal wrote suspension letters to all the students and claimed that the black armbands endangered the life of the students and caused a distraction as well. The students went to seek interpretation in a court of law. The high court ruling was that the student’s decision to wear black armbands was their right and a form of freedom of speech. Though the first amendment does not provide for free speech in private schools the above case set up free speech in the public schools.
Freedom of speech also touches the freedom of expression that has been extended to the media houses and the press. According to the Freedom House report of 2015 many countries are working hard to attain full free media. In such states the press is allowed to cover political events, the journalist’s security and protection is guaranteed, and the government doesn’t interfere with the affairs of the media houses. The 2015 survey report shows that there are still some countries where the press is partially free and others no freedom yet. Freedom House has a robust methodology to analyze the political, legal and economic environment of any country.
The freedom of speech is classified under the common law right. Freedom of speech is an aspect that has been used to facilitate the actualization of the other freedom. It’s said that without the freedom of speech it could be impossible for the other democracies to survive. The common law upholds freedom of speech, especially in matters related governance and politics. Those who developed the common attached a high value to free speech. It’s through speech that people express their concerns on how the government and politics are being handled. Lord Coleridge CJ argued that free speech serves the interests of the public; he, therefore, insisted that everybody is supposed to exercise the right without any form of intimidation. However, people should be warned against using the freedom to achieve malicious acts.
I am for all countries should adopt constitutions that uphold the freedom of speech by the public, activists, politicians and any other individual who has the interests of the society at heart. Freedom of speech also facilitates the development of thriving democracy whereby the rule of the people dominates (Barendt, 2005). The authorities and governments of such countries are always are always successful in serving their people because no single time will they implement policies that are unfavorable to the people. Such nations are always peaceful and thrive well economically. The freedom of speech has several future benefits in any country or Nation that adopts it.
The primary reason as to why the United States decided to allow freedom of speech is to give the citizens a conducive environment. That will enable them to share ideas on how to improve their lives or that of those whose freedoms are abused. They present their grievances to the relevant authorities. Through public speeches, the activists can mobilize people and carry out protests to be heard.
The consequences or results of freedom of speech bring several benefits into any society. When the ruling authority chooses to embrace particular restrictions to the speeches made to the public need to be specific. It will not be fair to burn all political rallies just because during one demonstration certain politicians incited the public. Instead, legal action should be taken against the individuals who uttered such words. The government cannot rule out all the political meetings, and it’s supposed to be specific by ordering the arrest of that single person. The restriction should be defined by law or the constitution to make sure that excess limits are not practiced. This will facilitate national cohesion and order in the operations of the public. With these policies in place, the freedom of speech will be utilized for the betterment of the society and any group of people. My advice to citizens of various countries is to make sure they enjoy their rights responsibly. Freedom of speech is very vital to everybody. However, the majority end up misunderstanding them. People should use the free speech to speak out for those whose rights have been interfered with by other entities. The governments should establish mechanisms to ensure the whistleblowers or those speaking out when the rights of some groups are abused are protected. Media houses and journalist should also be protected always because they are exposing them to various risks. The freedom of speech especially when informing people should not be limited at all cost. The restriction and censorship of speeches should only be held because does not show discrimination either should they be based on traditions or culture of a particular group of people.

References
Barendt, E. (2005). Freedom of speech. Oxford University Press.