Freedom of speech argumentative essay
The U.S. has for the longest time been very meticulous with regards to the freedom extended to its citizenry in matters about a speech. Legally, concerned bodies work tirelessly to bridle this particular freedom within guarded parameters. Nevertheless, different entities and institutions differ regarding definitions where what is a constitutional right to an individual may be interpreted as a polemic to another. Unequivocal limits should be put on the freedom of speech to keep a tight and firm rein on speech so as to create awareness on how far is too far when it comes giving utterances.
Tolerable Speech in Amicable Talks
Indeed, it is true that people will never agree on everything for we were naturally created to have different opinions on various subject matters. Consequently, this opens the floodgates of liberty where one is allowed to express their views and feelings. A nation cannot peacefully coexist in a democratic environment if the freedom of speech was to be yanked away from the citizens (Nelson). In fact, that would lose the entire purpose of having a government that operates in democracy. Therefore, eradicating the freedom of speech is not something that can be considered good riddance.
Polemics in the freedom of speech
The Constitution of the U.S. monitors the freedom of speech by casting light on word of mouth by an individual, time and place of utterance, the manner in which the information was communicated, and other non-verbal cues that might have been used. Evidently, this goes to illustrate that importance of speech is not just in what people say but where, when, and how they say it. Recently, President Donald Trump annulled the Johnson Amendment that had barricaded the churches in America from political interference. The move by the newly elect president has seen the religious segment crying foul over the issue of speech since the churches consider political infiltration into the temples an insufferable mishmash of two different worlds (Perry). Additionally, the freedom of expression was misused at the University of California at Berkeley after what started as a peaceful demonstration ended up in vandalism and destruction of the institution’s property (Nelson).
Ambiguity of the Matter
Earnestly, there exists a lot of equivocal on the freedom of speech. Fresh feeds from the world of science have witnessed the arraigning of writers in court after a climate scientist pressed charges against them. The scientist claimed that the peer reviewers of his article had tainted his name. Mr. Michael Mann was offended when the critics of his work dubbed his discovery fraudulent (Lowry). Again, the University of Wisconsin at Madison barred its lecturers from teaching great topics like homosexuality, race, and gender. The state legislators justified their move by questioning the political unerringness of the tutors with regards to the contentious issues (Moynihan). Apparently, one can depict that darkness looms in the world of speech having no clarity or defined demarcations as to how far the freedom of expression extends. Undoubtedly, what seems right to one is entirely wrong to the other. The U.S. government needs to convene all concerned parties and formalize a set of stipulations that draw a fine insurmountable line to guard and govern the freedom of speech.
In summary, America is a great country that can even be greater. However, small and negligible issues such as speech can plunge the country into a ramshackle if not painstakingly addressed.
Lowry, Rich. Are Fierce Polemics Free Speech? 13 January 2017. Web. 6 February 2017.
Moynihan, Donald. Who’s Really Placing Limits on Free Speech? 9 January 2017. Web. 6 February 2017.
Nelson, Lisa. Free Speech For Liberals Only. 3 February 2017. Web. 6 February 2017.
Perry, Luke. Letting Churches Endorse Politicians. 3 February 2017. Web. 6 February 2017.