The freedom of speech in the United States is under the regulation of First Amendment of the constitution. Currently, not everyone seems to be happy with the amendment. Such people claim that the amendment is too broad and has raised the bar too high for the legal institutions, making it difficult to determine the circumstances under which freedom of speech needs restrictions. However, the reality strands that freedom of speech needs stern regulation in specific circumstances.
Freedom of speech has garnered attention in the recent era due to a high rate of insecurity in the country. As a result, the constitution has set various limits under which one has to be denied his or her freedom of speech. First, a speech is under regulation in a situation it is deemed to perpetuate violence. In a situation where one uses a language that triggers emotions, for instance, hate speech, freedom of speech is denied. Also, the constitution restricts speech in a situation where it enhances defamation. These are circumstances where an individual uses a language which according to different regulations in the country, is interpreted as jeopardy to someone’s image or reputation. Further, freedom of speech is under restrictions in circumstances where a person uses an obscene language. Obscene language is offensive, abusive or a language deemed unfit for consumption in the society. Also, where speech has an intent to cite violence, the constitutional rule that such an individual's right is withdrawn. Lastly, freedom of speech is under restriction when it is unfit for children. An example of such a case is child pornography.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The limits are not restrictive in some specific cases. For instance, the law restricts abusively or any speech regarded as unfit to the society. These include hate speech or any speech jeopardizing an individual’s right. However, these are the same issues that are widespread in the community today. It is undeniable that people have the freedom to criticize anything they wish, however, it needs to be done in a non-provocative manner. Take a case of Charlie Hebdo cartoon publications, mostly the one where Prophet Muhammad is misrepresented through cartoon graphics. There have been no issues with these cartoons and a case of Muhammed is not interpreted as Blasphemy by the law. However, this is a case that is offensive and jeopardizes Muhammed’s reputation. In this case, the freedom of speech is misused and thus, needs to be denied. Such graphics can easily brew violence among Muhammed’s fanatics.
In cases where a freedom of speech is jeopardizing an individual’s right and is likely to brew violence among people in the society, more restriction is needed. Further, more restrictions are in need in a situation where people uses a language that is poisonous in the society. For instance, it should not just be child pornography, but restriction needs to be extended to the general public. The proposal is likely to be rejected by journalist such as Charlie Hebdo. However, religious leaders, political leaders and general society can agree that the society needs to pure and devoid of abusive language that can fuel civil and religious violence.
In summary, speech regulation is critical in the United States. The government, through the constitution, needs to come up with restrictive measures to regulate the freedom of speech to reduce the rate at which it is abused. One way to achieve this goal is to enact more restrictive measures on specific speech limitation strategies stated in the first constitution amendments, but are normally abused. This recommendation is likely to be enacted since it is the only way to prevent rampant conflict brought about by political and religious hate speech in the country.
References
Bedi, G., Carrillo, F., Cecchi, G. A., Slezak, D. F., Sigman, M., Mota, N. B., ... & Corcoran, C. M. (2015). Automated analysis of free speech predicts psychosis onset in high-risk youths. npj Schizophrenia , 1 , 15030.
Crosse, M. J., Butler, J. S., & Lalor, E. C. (2015). Congruent visual speech enhances cortical entrainment to continuous auditory speech in noise-free conditions. Journal of Neuroscience , 35 (42), 14195-14204.
Mitchell, D. (2016). The liberalization of free speech: Or, how a protest in public space is silenced. Spaces of Contention: Spatialities and Social Movements , 47 .
Shiffrin, S. H. (2017). Hate Speech, Legitimacy, and the Foundational Principles of Government. Const. Comment. , 32 , 675.
