We Need Protect Our First Amendment by Educating People Not Restricting Speech

We Need Protect our First Amendment by Educating People Not Restricting Speech

Free speech is protected under the First Amendment of the constitution of the United States of America. The men who drafted each amendment made broad statements. There are so many ways that each Amendment can be interpreted based on a reader's beliefs, education, and history. Because the amendments were written with broad statements there has been numerous court cases arguing one side or the other of each amendment. Trans. Freedom of Speech is one of the fundamental rights as an American citizen. And I feel that we should protect that right for everyone by continuing to educate people to embrace the differences in people. We should also educate people to be tolerant and empathetic to each other's feelings because if we continue to restrict free speech based on each person's feelings or beliefs then no one would ever be able to talk again. This is vague. Exactly what are you arguing be done and why?

An early example for me of education versus regulation was years ago while I was riding home from school a boy in pushed me off my bike. He then called my mother a curse word. I retaliated with violence, and ran home. My parents talked to me about tolerance, ignorance, and freedom of speech. (vague) The education I received from my parents that day helped me to understand that resorting to violence solved nothing. I didn't feel better, and it didn't stop that boy from picking on me again. In factcomma because he saw how much it bothered me; incorrect semicolon he actually picked on me more. It wasn't until I began ignoring him that he quit. I learned that early lesson on Free Speech and that I should respect each person's right to say how they feel even if I do not agree. Ok, but this is not evidence, and it is still unclear exactly what you would like to argue be done. Who decides?

Trans. Here is a statement made by Supreme Court Justice Brandeis that supports education instead of regulation of freedom of speech. Justice Brandeis explained vt shift that the "fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones" and "[i]f there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence" (Chemerinsky 772). People need to educate each other to combat hate speech or any other symbolism that disagrees with our own beliefs or religion. People should be encouraged to speak, discuss, and even argue their views openly and without fear of prosecution. But this is not evidence. You simply keep repeating the same points, which is not proof.

On the other hand?, I can understand that one person's right to free speech may infringe on another person's right to walk free without fear being subjected to hate speech. I hear hate speech every day. I have to endure other people talking loudly; saying curse words, talking about sexual encounters, or calling each other racial slurs. I have to ignore or move on. Should I be able to alert the authorities that this talk offends me? Should I have the power to force the other people to stop talking because I find it offensive? What are your answers here? Needs trans. People may feel the same way about me when I am talking about death, blood, bacteria, and diseases. Where would the restriction on free speech end if we all keep turning each other into the authorities each time we are subjected to what we consider to be obscene or hate speech? Freedom of Speech is just that, Free. And with that, we also have the freedom to either; listen, not listen, or offer an opposing view. This is confusing. What are you saying the information in this paragraph proves? Why? It seems like generalizations and your opinion rather than proof or fact.

Trans. A clear example of free speech winning over regulation is Tinker v. Des Moines. The students wore armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War.