How many times have you wanted to show your honest sentiment about an issue that concerns you. but you held back because you know in making so it would take to unwanted effects? Many people question the First Amendment due to the fact that some people take advantage of it and utilize it for the incorrect ground. The First Amendment allows you to talk your head and show any feelings that you might hold towards groups. faiths. ideas. or thoughts. James Madison one time stated. “As long as the ground of adult male continues fallible. and he is at autonomy to exert it. different sentiments will be formed” ( Brainyquotes. com ) .
However. with incorrect purposes people use the First Amendment to tilt on and flex the Bill of Rights every bit far as they can. The First Amendment should be relied on for the right grounds that consist of honestness and unity. The First Amendment should non be relied on when we choose to non take duty for our ain actions. Over 200 old ages ago. the First Amendment along with the other nine were introduced by James Madison in order to maintain the authorities from go againsting basic American civil autonomies.
Harmonizing to the First Amendment. “The right to freedom of address allows persons to show themselves without intervention or restraint by the authorities. The Supreme Court A for content-neutral statute law. The Supreme Court has besides recognized that the authorities may forbid some address that may do a breach of the peace or cause force. ” Most late. after September 11th 2001 many take this amendment to the following degree and inquiry how free precisely is free address? Free address should non be all free.
In “Free-Speech Follies” written by Stanley Fish he states. “Self-censorship. in short. is non a offense or a moral weakness ; it is a responsibility” ( 203 ) . I agree with Fish that there needs to be more duty and people should non be able to trust on the Free- Speech Amendment to make it for them. There should be bounds on how far our citizens are able to acquire away with offenses they consider to be related to their Bill of Rights. For illustration. in 2008 a 16 twelvemonth old miss named Megan Meier committed suicide. because of a female parent that decided to compose barbarous messages on MySpace.
Although Lori Drew did non acquire prosecuted. she now has to cover with the effects around her vicinity as being known as the female parent who caused Megan Meier to perpetrate self-destruction. Lory Magid states “We demand to be careful to pull the line between harmful torment and constitutionally protected address merely as in the battle against terrorist act. those lines can easy be blurred” ( CBSnews. com ) . Lori Drew used the Free-Speech Amendment as an alibi for what she did. Drew leaned on the First Amendment for the incorrect grounds and after this instance ; Torahs were made to assist forestall similar issues.
However. some people will trust on it that to see how far they can travel with the Free-Speech Amendment. The U. S is making similarly with its war on panic ; when they put certain persons through excess showing at the airdrome. because they look somewhat intuitions or are a different colour. Furthermore. wire tapping is another issue that the authorities has given itself the right to listen to people’s phone calls. and that is besides used as an alibi that is a manner for contending terrorist act.
Similarly. the period after September 11. 2001 many people began to demo their support and nationalism by seting U. S. flags on their houses. While others who decided non to were looked at as disloyal or looked at as a terrorist. Fish besides writes about a scenario were a pupil wrote an offending article that was titled “Is Anti-Semitism Ever the Result of Jewish Behavior? ” The module adviser that had approved this narrative claimed “The First Amendment isn’t at that place to protect agreeable stories” ( 203 ) . I besides believe that Free-speech in the custodies of the imperativeness must stay by self-censorship. which means taking duty for printing something that may arouse a batch of people.
Proving Fish’s statement of “You can publish anything you like ; but if the heat comes. it’s yours. non the Constitution’s” ( 203 ) . Another article written by Stuart Taylor Jr. titled “It’s Time to Trash the Double Standard on Free Speech. ” explains the writers positions are based on modern-day political idea. Taylor writes about another issue that incites many feelings. Andres Serrano’s. who took a exposure of a rood in piss titled Piss Christ and called it a “work of art. ” The exposure literally depicts a rood in a jar that in filled with urine and sealed.
This exposure arises many struggles between non merely the really spiritual but those who merely believe God. Taylor’s claim provinces nevertheless. if there were a exposure of Martin Luther King immersed in urine so Taylor says “the sky would fall and the full school would be put through sensitiveness training” ( 213 ) . Free Speech is non all free ; there should be restrictions to the First Amendment. If there was non so people like Lori Drew would acquire off with things like Cyber intimidation.
Or journalist would acquire off with titling their articles “Is Anti-Semitism Ever the Result of Jewish Behavior? ” and believe that people are non traveling to react to something like that. Is this the sort of message we want to direct the following coevalss to come? On the other manus. in the article “A Chill Wind Is Blowing in This Nation” written by Tim Robbins. he believes the absolute antonym. Robbins thinks that all Free Speech should be supported. His grounds is “Our ability to differ. and our built-in right to oppugn our leaders and knock their actions define who we are.
To let those rights to be taken off out of fright. to penalize people for their beliefs. to restrict entree in the intelligence media to differing sentiments is to admit our democracy’s defeat” ( 210 ) . Robin’s point of being able to talk out. I agree. on the other manus. he assumes the mentality of everyone is of the mentality of his ain. and that we all have good purposes. Sadly plenty. we are all human and bulk of us do non hold good purposes. A batch of us are selfish and do non set into idea what our actions will do for others.
This is why I agree with Fish and Taylor that non all Free Speech is free or should be free. Robins thought that the First Amendment is at that place to be leaned on is foolish. Peoples who lean on the First Amendment every bit far as they lean take advantage of the state of affairss and do non take full duty for their ain actions. which causes pandemonium around the universe. While the First Amendment states the right to freedom of address allows persons to show themselves without intervention or restraint by the authorities. there must be a line that we draw as to how free our address truly is.
The right to Free Speech should non be misconceived and used to pass on hate offenses. Not merely for the protection of ourselves but for the staying citizens of our state. James Madison evidently. did non take into consideration that bulk of our state would take things like the First Amendment for granted ; possibly when it was written it should hold been really specific as to what was expected of us worlds. The First Amendment is at that place for us to utilize out of honestness and uprightness non corruptness or fraudulence.