The freedom of speech allows the people “to say almost anything except that which is obscene, slanders another person, or has a high probability of including others to take imminent lawless action” (Patterson, 2015, p.107). Freedom of speech gives the people the right to say how they feel about anything that they want to address without the fear of getting in trouble with the law. According to Lombardo freedom of speech is “a basis in the continuation of health and well-being of freedom”. It is understandable why she feels that freedom of speech is good for people health and well-being. When people tend to hold your feelings in instead of expressing them can make you feel sick or unease. According to Hendel “emotional stress, like that from blocked emotions, has not only been linked to metal ills, but also to physical problems like heart disease, intestinal problems, headaches, insomnia and autoimmune disorders.”
According to Lombardo a backdraft to freedom of speech is that “it can be harmful”. In some cases, freedom of speech can be harmful to people. Some people may be hurt by some things that people say, however were the harmful part comes in at is when someone is being physical harm and someone life is be put in danger. Britt Christensen, Ph. D says that a benefit of freedom of speech is that it “permits people to air their grievances and works as a pressure release valve, helping curb violent uprising by the population.” This is true, sometimes when people can talk out their differences it can change the mood and clam everyone down. When it comes to talking everyone must be willing to listen and be willing to settle the differences. This is also good because when it comes to work are group projects people can throw out suggestions and can communicate with others and get an understanding of why the ideal is good and why it may not be good with agreeing about it.
When it comes to everything there is always a limitation. What are limitations? When you are being limited you can do things but there are boundaries that are set. The first restriction to freedom of speech was the Espionage Act that “prohibited forms of dissent that could have harmed the nation’s effort in World War I” (Patterson, 2015, p. 108). However, it also states that “congress had the authority to restrict expression that posed a “clear and present danger” to the nation’s security” (Patterson, 2015, p. 108) If the government feels that what someone is saying is speaking on harming the nation then that person could get in trouble. There is a limited that is set for the government to use this act. “The state cannot prohibit speech that advocates the unlawful use of force unless it meets a two-part test: first, the speech must be “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and, second, it must be “likely to produce such action” (Patterson, 2015, p. 109). Thanks to the imminent lawless action that prevents the government from attempting to restrict speech, Americans are basically allowed to say what they want to say about anything.
Freedom of speech would be worded as Freedom to say what you want if it does not cause harm to others or cause others to commit a crime. The purpose of saying it this way is to make it easier for people to understand and to also let them know that if it causes harm or cause someone to commit a crime then they may be hold accountable for their words if proven guilty.
Did you like this example?
This paper was written and submitted by a fellow student
Our verified experts write your 100% original paper on any topic