Free Speech?

1. Sanchez1
Chandler Sanchez
1/30/2014
FYS
Blanco
Free Speech?
Today, speaking your simple opinionin any scenario couldcause complexproblems.
We live in a world where anything that is spoken can be heard thousands of miles away in
minutes do to the powers of our new technologies. No matter who or where they are, there
are going to be people that disagree with others no matter what the topic might be. The
difference that forges the disagreement maybe minuscule or massive. It does not matter what
the differenceis though, people have proven repeatedlythat they are willing to go even as far
as war over beliefs.
One thing that this fact brings up is another disagreement inopinions, whether or not
people shouldbe allowed to express these opinions openly, or theyshould keepthem to
themselves to avoid confrontation. This is ironic because it just creates aneven bigger
argument. On one hand, you have people who want to honor the First Amendment, while
others believe that it would be better for everyone’s sake along with the United States and
other nations if we regulatedwhat people say. While this would not be limitingeverything
that everyone said, just taking away things like antagonizing hate speech, what we say will
still have to be inspected insteadof waiting on it to reported.

2. Sanchez2
The opposingside has one counter statement though. As Greenbalt put it “In an era
when words and images can be transmittedaround the world instantaneouslyby anyone with
a cell phone, even some Americanacademics argue that an absolutist view of First
Amendment protections couldn't be expectedto prevail.” no one could’ve known that mass
media would become sucha thing. One comment caneasilyset off a foreigngovernment or
Dictator. People who already disagree with us couldbe antagonized and or feel threatened
into taking different forms of actions, startingwar or punishing their own. (3)
People shouldbe willing to keepsome personal opinions to themselves for the sake of
others. Journalists are doinga favor for the people of some countries, without them, many
people would not know what was happening in other countries, but the way that it is
publicized couldbe changed. Journalists andin the rare case even cartoonists are beingkilled
all the time for the things they say, even if it is the truth. Some leaders do not want others to
know what the people under their rule are going through or their nationas a whole, so maybe
these types of things shouldbe eliminatedand new ways shouldbe found to get good
publicityof not so goodthings.
What about when it is not somethingso large scale, but if it is somethingbetween a
few persons, cyberbullyinghas become one of the biggest problems tackedonto social
media. It is actually quite commonfor a student to face these types of things daily or though
most of their school career or further after, it even happens to adult. Things like this can lead
anyone to depression or darker actions. While there is a differencebetweenharassment and
speaking negatively about someone, Cyberbullyingis still felonyno matter what the case, we
have found a serious problem withfreedom of speechand solved it. There for this is one

3. Sanchez3
example of laws being put on the First Amendment. However, in almost everyone’s eyes,
this is not a bad thing. Why can this not be applied to a larger scale of things though? (1)
This is only one reasonthat the forefathers of our nations shouldhave taken account
for the changing time and technologies. It is not as if we should shut down everyone’s
opinions all together or neglect their religionbut be allowed to alter laws and regulationas
seenfit. For example taking away the abilityto talk about and antagonize terrorist groups
does not reallyaffect us at all, it just stops us from giving what they want. This does not
mean we cannot speak about them at all, yet it would be regulated. Regulations do not pose
for elimination;some people just fear the word. Some countries have specific propaganda
and blasphemy laws already to avoid conflicts andserious problems. (2)
It is obvious that in some eyes that these laws may help in some way and are even
needed. The problem is implementingthem without offending others by limitingwhat they
can say that might offendothers or conflict withothers, without them thinking there opinion
is taken away all together. This process wouldbe very trickyand would take a lot of time;it
must be done without taking the entire First Amendment away as well.

4. Sanchez4
Works Cited
 Belnap, Allison. "Tinker At A Breaking Point: WhyThe Specter Of Cyberbullying
Excuse Impermissible Public School RegulationOf Off-Campus Student Speech
Cannot." Brigham Young University Law Review 2011.2 (2011): 501-533. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.
 Bork, Robert H. "Neutral Principlesand Some First Amendment Problems."Indiana Law
Journal 47 (1971):n. pag. Heinonline.org. Web. 28 Jan. 2015
 . Greenblatt, Alan. "Free Speechat Risk." CQ Researcher 26 Apr. 2013: 377-400. Web.
30 Jan. 2015.