University of California
Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter
This house believes it is sometimes right to restrict freedom of speech
“This House believes that it is sometimes right for the government to restrict freedom of speech. ” In my opinion, Freedom of speech has had more of a negative impact in our society than a positive one. The government needs to create laws that allow freedom of speech but allow it to a certain extent. Do you think the government should restrict freedom of speech? If so, what are some ways you would help the situation? The government should be able to sometimes restrict freedom of speech for many reasons.
I will be elaborate on the following: freedom of speech comes with limitations; freedom of speech causes problems and freedom of speech has never been absolute. I believe freedom of speech comes with limitations. In many ways it gives us the option to voice are opinions but, still doesn’t give us full complete power over what we say. In the article “When can faculties? ” by Mitch Smith it talks about a sociology professor speaking her opinion. Professor Jamie Price voiced her opinion on a situation in class. While speaking her opinion she also showed explicit videos to prove her point.
Professor Jamie price was fired on the charges of inappropriate speech and conduct in the classroom. In my opinion she was charged for speaking her opinion in the class. In this case, if the government restricted freedom of speech laws than I believe this wouldn’t have happened. In the article it says “Jamie had shown other documentaries and videos with the same content to prove her point to students. Meaning, she had done this in this past. If we let the government restrict some of our freedom of speech laws, this professor could have still had a job. I also believe that freedom of speech causes problems.
Although being able to voice your voice is beneficial in many ways, it stills causes problems in our society. An example of my claim can be found in the article “Chick-fil-A Controversy” by Robert Thomas. The article talks about how the CEO of Chick-fil-A spoke his opinion on gay marriage and got attacked about it. It started as someone voicing their opinion on a situation but, turned into something bigger. There are many other cases similar to this one. Someone will voice their personal opinion on a situation and then get judged on speaking their opinion. Although it’s
great to voice your opinion, it still causes a lot more problems than you would think for a “so-called” positive thing. Last, I believe that freedom of speech has never been absolute. Although we can have and voice our opinions, there are still things we aren’t allowed to say. This includes freedom of speech that incites immediate violence and commercial speech. So, if the government restricts the freedom of speech rights we have, then we would probably have a lot less incidents on freedom of speech. In the article “Freedom of speech was never absolute” by Thomas Dickerson goes more in depth with my theory.
The article manly talks about, how freedom of speech has never been absolute. In Thomas’s opinion, absolute freedom of speech means slandering others, making terrorist attacks ext. Meaning, we will never have absolute freedom of speech rights. There are many possible solutions for this problem. One I recommend is creating new freedom of speech laws. If our government came together and made laws that allow us to voice our opinion but still have some restrictions. A course of action that needs to be taken would be combining freedom of speech laws and making them into one whole document.