Liberty vs Freedom in Hobbes's Leviathan

1984 Freedom Is Freedom
In our modern society, it is not uncommon to speak of the tyranny of the U.S. government because
many individuals mistake the right of liberty for the right of freedom. The US Constitution reads,
"We the People of the United States, in order to. . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
our Prosperity," the introduction clearly writes "Liberty", not freedom. What's the difference?
Freedom means that the decisions are completely unbound by any external controls, while liberty is
freedom that is given to the people, bounded by external controls. Liberty ensures a stable
democracy because it gives people the power to act, but it also allows the government to control any
individual who utilizes his/her freedom in a way that threatens ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
As depicted in the novel, 1984, without these fundamental rights, a functional democracy cannot be
guaranteed, further less without these fundamental rights, a functional democracy cannot even be
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Freedom Of Speech : The Importance Of The Freedom Of Speech
Being citizens of the united states of America, American people given certain rights and privileges.
One of these importance privileges is provided to them by first amendment or their constitution, the
freedom of speech every person in the world is born with distance voice of their won. The
fundamental question is whether or not a person is actually granted freedom to use their voice in all
of its entirety, and whether or not such a thing actually exists.
French law said human many not agree with what he or she said, but they have will defend to death
to their right to say it. Speech is fundamental to the existence of mankind and for countries man has
communicated with his fellow man, which has allowed him to dominate over most natural obstacles
that have been hurled at him. Man, being the brilliant creature that he is, implemented a set of rights
and practices for his fellow man to follow, restricting certain functions. shouls Most of the others so
called laws have been brought to simply by means of status, supporting this idea. So, people
demanded freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid this concept
links the idea that a person is given or born with ability to say anything, however he or she does not
always have something of importance to say. Along with freedom of speech one should also
remember the timeless chinses prove, speck slowly, but think quickly. This prove one that words are
how one is judged, and there for they must choose the words we use wisely and take time to think
about words that use before they spoken.
The citizen of American changed and influenced freedom of speech since its implementation, it can
be traced back to chivalry of the English knights in the middle ages, or seen in a more modern light
with the death of Martin Luther king jr. man who was murdered as revolutionary speaker and writer,
struggling for true equality in united states of America and all other parts. It is important for one to
respect the rights of people or individuals to express them self in a responsible manner for civilized
society to maintain itself. Freedom of speech is in danger because many of middle east countries are
not having freedom of speech. Their presidents are very bad

The Meaning Of Freedom
The Meaning of Freedom Freedom has very different meanings to each individual which makes it
hard to find a clear precise definition. The meaning of freedom to me is the right to do things as I
choose. It is the right to act or speak and make my own choices without restraint. Many people say
they would do whatever it takes to achieve to goal of true freedom, but how far will they really go
for their rights? Can people have freedom and still be responsible citizens? The definition of
freedom might be to some racial equality, equal rights, and gender equality. Just for this one idea,
people have gone as far as risking their lives and the lives of everyone around them. Freedom is the
choice to live one's life and to do what one wants, live ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Freedom does mean to right to do as one pleases, to think, believe, speak, worship, move about,
gather. I believe everyone should act as you choose, but only until your choices start to infringe on
another person's freedom. You can be a responsible citizen and still enjoy your freedom. Enjoying
our freedom does not mean that we can disregard the rights of others and live the way we feel right.
We also have to consider the rights and the feelings of the other people around us when living our
freedom. "We believe in the freedom of people to make their own mistakes. We do not interfere with
them and they should not interfere with others" (Roosevelt, 1905). I observe the rules and traditions
of the society. Sometimes I'm not free to act as I want, because I know that it can bring harm to
people whom I love and respect. We really need to live in the society that is restricted. Can you
imagine one where all the people do what they want to? I think that it would turn into chaos. That's
why I stick to the opinion that people should obey the rules of the society they live in and respect the
rights of other people. Freedom is not an absolute right, and it too has some constraints. A popular
saying goes: "Your freedom ends where mine begins." A freedom that poses a threat to the society
and the nation we dwell in is not freedom in real sense. One cannot just violate laws, kill people,
smuggle drugs or doing anything detrimental to the society and call it

Freedom Of Speech: What Is Freedom Of Speech?
What Is Freedom of Speech?
What is Freedom of Speech? The concept of the freedom of speech began in the 1800s. In the
1800s, not everyone had Freedom Of Speech. In North America, African–Americans were slaves
and were not allowed to participate in their country at first, and their rights in terms of freedom of
speech were given to them later. Freedom of speech has not been consistently available to all
citizens: it is a right that. For an act to be deemed valid as Freedom of Speech, it must positively
acknowledge the thoughts and ideas of the opposition while arguing against it in a non violent
manner to best persuade and convince the opposition.
Freedom of speech is about politely conveying and discussing one's perspective. An act of hate
speech is when one intentionally attempts to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A strong scenario where hate speech was utilized was when I was in 7th grade and I asked my
teacher to change seats and she asked me if I could afford it. This is hate speech because she had
targeted me for being black and associated it with me being poor because of being black. If I was
white this response wouldn't have been valid because "poor white people" isn't a common stereotype
or generalization. This is an act of hate speech used for malicious intentions as she not only targeted
me for my race, but also put me in a stereotype of a poor black person. On the other side of the
spectrum, in the Neil Gaiman article "Why our future depends on libraries, reading and
daydreaming" he discusses why books are crucial to the children and people of the future as they
develop

Bill Of Freedoms
America isn't the greatest country in the world, but when compared to many other countries today
it's still on the better side of the spectrum. Part of this could be attributed to the fact that the US has
a written constitution with a bill of rights. To summarize, the US bill of rights consists of ten
amendments that are meant to basic freedoms to its citizens. The ideas behind the bill of rights have
spurred us forward, allowing us to improve and become better than the hypocrites of our past.
Looking back, it's clear that the ten amendments are defining aspects of our culture and
governmental system, none more so than the first amendment. Despite the fact that people can and
will misuse their first amendment freedoms, it's still one of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
They allow citizens to speak their minds about any injustices that they believe people are being
subject to. They've allowed great things in our history, like the civil rights movement which gave
African–Americans the equality and the right to vote. However, they also have restrictions. For
example, you can't use freedom of speech with the express purpose of harassing someone. You also
can't assemble people and petition violently. Taking all of it's allowances and restrictions into
account, these freedoms are double–edged sword. In our modern day, a person could say that the
first amendment freedoms are being misused, in that many people could use them to spread harmful
misinformation. A modern example of that could be the Anti–Vaccination movement. This
movement started from a 1998 study by Andrew Whitefield that purportedly linked vaccines to
autism (Stav Ziv, Newsweek.com). Though the study was eventually found to be falsified, the
damage had already been done. People believed the study and the movement began. The people
behind the movement utilized their freedom of speech to convince more people that vaccines cause
autism, despite that being absolutely false. Data shows that this movement has caused a resurgence
in previously eradicated diseases like measles and has been linked to preventable deaths (Brian
Krans, Healthline.com). The surprising thing is is that despite this, the people behind the movement
aren't necessarily doing anything illegal. Their utilizing their freedoms to spread what they believe
to be the

Freedom And Freedom In Hobbes's Leviathan
Freedom and liberty are both somewhat irrelevant concepts in Hobbes's Leviathan. Although he
would argue that the type of regime in power has no real effect whatsoever on the freedom of its
populace, his focus in writing Leviathan is not to create a form of government that allows its people
to be most free. Rather, he intends to create a government which would most fully provide for the
safety of those ruled by it. As such, freedom and liberty in the conventional sense do not appear in
his text and he instead focuses on security and fear. Hobbes's first definition of freedom is
interesting in that it is a very literal interpretation thereof. He states that "Liberty, or Freedom,
signifieth (properly) the absence of opposition (by opposition, ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The regime is not what determines liberty, but rather the laws that that regime enacts. For Hobbes,
every regime has one sovereign that is able to rule with unlimited power. Even in a democracy,
Hobbes argues that the electorate combines to create one single sovereign and that power is not split
equally among each voter. As aforementioned, Hobbes does not argue that a regime can never
infringe upon the liberty of its citizens. He concedes that if a sovereign begins to enact an excess of
laws then there are some scenarios within which the overloading of laws could infringe upon the
citizens' liberty. It is important to note, however, that no matter what laws the sovereign establishes,
nor how intruding upon one's liberty they appear to be, they will never be unjust. As Hobbes says
"nothing the sovereign representative can do to a subject, on what pretence soever, can properly be
called injustice, or injury, because every subject is author of every act the sovereign doth," (138).
This ties back to the original covenant that all citizens agree upon at the inception of the
Commonwealth, where they all authorize the sovereign to perform every action the sovereign deems

Freedom Of Speech : The Importance Of The Freedom Of Speech
Freedom of speech is a right protected by the First Amendment. According to the administrative
office of the United States Courts (n.d.), the First Amendment states that, "Congress shall make no
law... abridging freedom of speech." Freedom of speech is arguably one of the most cherished
American values in the First Amendment. As defined by an online unabridged Dictionary (n.d.), The
rights covered by freedom of speech include the right to express opinions publicly without
governmental interference. You are wrong when you say that we should shut down news outlets
when they broadcast information that you do not like because freedom of speech applies to news
outlets.
News outlets have freedom of speech. Simply put by an article on the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The only reason individuals have to believe that news outlets do not have freedom of speech would
be because they are committing slander or libel. According to Dictionary.com, slander is,
"defamation by oral utterance" while libel is, "defamation by written or printed words." According
to information provided by Maureen P. Haney (2016), an attorney in Cleveland, Ohio, whenever
news outlets publish information that could be considered defamation, they are protected by the first
amendment rights specifically because news outlets are allowed to broadcast their opinion. So news
outlets have every right a person does and can state their opinion however they please. Shutting
down news outlets when they broadcast information that you do not like infringes on freedom of
speech. The only appropriate time to shut down a news outlet would be if they were continuously
spreading false information purposefully that was causing mass chaos across the country. That
hypothetical scenario would be similar to the Schenck v. United States Supreme Court case which
according to Oyez, concluded that the character of the individual must be taken into account when
examining their rights. That court case created the famous example of yelling "Fire" in a crowded
theatre. Because yelling "Fire" would create unnecessary mass hysteria, it is not protected by the
individual's First Amendment rights.Fake news outlets, such as The Onion, only publish satirical
news articles and are still able to

The Freedom Of Speech
As an incoming freshman at Dartmouth, I know little about the campus – from where the best late
night snacks are to what people tend to do on the weekends. But I do know why I chose Dartmouth.
It is strongly focused on both the arts and sciences, and above all, on community (where perhaps
green transcends even red and blue). Dartmouth alumni, faculty, and current students alike are
exuberant to share their experiences with the university. College is one of the most diverse
communities that an individual will be a part of. It's only natural that you'll become friends with
people completely different than yourself. Thus, I hope to find the following statement to be true: "at
Dartmouth, differences are embraced and ideas are challenged."
Yet, like many other college campuses across the nation, the freedom of expression is a matter of
debate at Dartmouth. The freedom of speech is a fundamental right and basis for any democracy. So,
why is it an issue of such controversy?
To begin with, it is no secret that today's current political landscape is polarized. One does not have
to look beyond the echo chambers of our Facebook feeds and our daily newsletters to see how
ideologies influence facts. America's political parties are growing stronger. This is dangerous largely
because "us" is becoming "us vs. them". We are not only divided in our political beliefs but in our
daily lives. According to a 2014 Pew Research study, marrying someone or living near someone of a
differing

Freedom Of Freedom Essay
Freedom of speech, press, and religion is like a traffic light. The by–laws are always changing and
everyone must obey them. What is freedom? Freedom is the act of doing what one pleases without
the fear of government intervening or restraining the action. So, if our freedoms are restricted, are
we really free? Personally, I do consider the freedoms of the Bill of Rights counts as freedom. It is
however, an opinionated topic and just like the by–laws of the amendments, everyone's backing case
will be different. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Take Gregory Lee Johnson for example. Johnson assumed that the act of flag burning was protected
under the First Amendment. So he went and desecrated a United States flag. On June 21, 1989, the
Supreme Court made its final decision on the court case Texas vs Johnson. The court ruled in favor
of Johnson. They agreed that though the act is viewed as offensive that it was protected under the
First Amendment. They, however put laws in the way of that happening again without legal action.
While some cases become huge and are taken to the Supreme Court, others stay on more local
levels. That, however doesn't make them any less important. The last court case was all about
freedom of speech. Now let's take a look at freedom of religion. Down in the little town of Negrete
Louisiana a little boy got bullied for not being Christian. Lane is a Buddhist practicing boy who was
forced to do things against his religion by staff of Negrete high school. The lawsuit even states
"school officials have a longstanding custom, policy, and practice of promoting and inculcating
Christian beliefs". The school even had a picture of God hanging in the hallway. The teacher of the
little boy was a science teacher and was only teaching about how God made the Earth. This case is
one of many that helped take religion out of schools. Was it for the better? For the final piece of the
first amendment, we will look at a case about freedom of press. On October13, 1987,

Freedom Speech
By not allowing speech that is racially bigoted or offensive on campus we are sending the message
that that behavior and ideology is not accepted in the public sphere, we are not allowing it to
become a norm, and are thus discouraging and alienating those that want to use that kind of harmful
language. Delgado writes, " When social pressures and rewards for racism are absent.... prejudiced
persons may even refrain from discriminating behavior to escape social disapproval," (148). We can
see examples throughout history of how protecting the free speech of racists and white nationalists
has caused injury to marginalized groups. One such example would be with the court case Village of
Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America; in which Nazi's wanted to hold a "peaceful" public
assembly in the town of Skokie, Illinois, where the majority of the citizens were of Jewish descent,
and at least ten percent were Holocaust survivors (Adams 277). The Supreme Court of Illinois
originally ruled that the Nazi Party wouldn't be allowed to march or display the swastika, but when
the case reached the Court of Appeals it was decided that this ruling went against the First
Amendment. Even though the Court of Appeals agreed that for the Skokie Villages Jewish
community it would be a traumatic experience seeing the Nazi Party's display, the swastika was
considered a form of symbolic speech and therefore was protected speech (Delgado 134). When we
protect hate speech and give white

Freedom Of Speech And Freedom Of Speech
One of the most complex things in establishing in a government is determining how much freedom
the citizens in a society has. Throughout history we have seen many different type of governments
that include North Koreas' dictatorship to the United States that has a government based on
principles of democracy. In societies that have democratic governments such as the United States,
England, France, and many other western European countries, the citizens have a high degree of
freedom of speech. In addition, these people are allowed to have a high degree of freedom of
thought. Although these are both very important to have in life because they allow you to express
who you truly are, there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of thought. While
there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of thought, English Philosopher John
Stuart Mill provides his opinion on the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of thought in
his book On Liberty. Whether you are a person who is wealthy or poor, highly educated or not
educated at all, or even a minority, every person in a democratic society such as the United States is
granted the right of freedom speech. Other countries throughout Western Europe grant the right of
freedom of speech to their citizens. However, the right of freedom of speech is granted by the
United States constitution which was written during the eighteenth century. It is clear that the
countries that allow the right of freedom of

Freedom Of Speech In The Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
The right to freedom of speech as one of the fundamental human rights is enshrined in The Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. It is consisted of the freedom to speak, think and express oneself without
censorship. Freedom of speech constitutes the essential foundations of a democratic society and the
basic conditions for its progress and for the development. One of most important functions of the
right to freedom of speech is that decision–making at all levels is preceded by discussion and
consideration of a representative range of views. It enables the public to participate in making
decisions based on the free flow of information and ideas. A decision made after adequate
consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly reflects

The Freedom Of Speech : Freedom Of Speech
Philadelphia 1787, our forefathers set forth the ideas that would establish a country of free men
escaping the persecution of England. They created a set of right that every American or immigrant,
has an equal opportunity too. When someone tries to take this away, by this paper, they are our
enemy. A right that everyone knows is freedom of speech. As an American, I live in a country that
allows for me to be whatever I want or say whatever I want, as long as it does not directly hurt an
individual or group. Due to current events, freedom of speech is limited for a group of individuals.
Oddly enough it's not the group one would think; it is not the Neo–Nazi's who killed someone in
Charlottesville or the group of white kids who hung a biracial child from a tree, it is the NFL players
who kneeled during the anthem. A right is a right no matter what race, religion, creed, gender, or
sexual orientation. Although I do not think what the NFL stands behind is solid ground, I still
believe that their right to protest should not be taken away. Presidents Trump's words toward these
players who did not stand were utterly uncalled for. I do not want someone who directly called a
group of citizens "sons of bitches" to protect a country of millions. His statement that they should be
"fired" for protesting is absurd. They, as with millions of others think that the treatment of minorities
in this country is unfair, that is why they are protesting there is no other reason. If Trump wants to
suppress their free speech, he must be equal and suppress all forms including his white supremacist
brothers.
Throughout my entire life, I have been taught that everyone should be treated equally, but due to
current events in the last few years, I know that we are the furthest thing from it. Equality is not,
non–segregated bathrooms, or equal opportunities. Although it may be a step in the correct
direction, it is not comparable. News headlines are the best example of why we have not changed.
When the identity of the Las Vegas shooter was released to the public on Tuesday, an article
published by the Washington Post stated, "he liked to gamble, listened to country music, and lived a
quiet retired life." It took the author four

Freedom : Religion, Freedom, And Freedom
When America adopted the term Freedom, as far back as the country's founding. To how we as a
nation obtained freedom and the patriots who had to fight several wars in order to continue to
possess it. As citizens and members of a society, we are extremely fortunate to have several different
types of freedoms. Although this is a good thing in some cases, there comes to a point where too
much freedom can be dangerous because there would essentially be no protection for the people. To
prevent this from happening, we give up particular freedoms and swap it for safety. The freedoms
that are most important to me are religion, economic, education, and gun control. With that being
said, there should be the same "restriction" on each of the freedoms, no acts of violence will be
condoned. Supporting religious freedom is the fundamental right to practice your preferred religion
or no religion. When separating the church and state, it avoids religious clashing that is known to
have torn other nations apart. The benefits are providing a sense of meaning, purpose, and identity.
However, if the government was to not impede on the freedom of religion, they can't penalize you.
For example, in some cases where people might perform an unethical act, such as sacrifices, they
can change their religion to the one that fits their beliefs and has okayed their actions. By not having
this freedom regulated can justify people's religion as an excuse for their wrongdoings. We should
be allowed to

The Freedom Of Freedom In John Milton'sParadise Lost?
John Milton was an English writer who served as secretary under the rule of Oliver Cromwell and
he had expertise in several things (Hunt, 2012, pg. 540). He was a poet, a person who never shy
away from controversy as reflected in his defense of the freedom of the press. When he published
his most popular poem "Paradise Lost", the socio–political situation was at an edge due to the
continuous religious change. Milton is mostly known due to his enormous talent as a poet, but he
got engaged in several socio–political activities and out of them, he gained more popularity for
advocating for the freedom of the press in the sixteen centuries. In his prose Areopagitica, John
Milton shared philosophical defense of the right to freedom of the press/ speech. He expressed it by
claiming that books about religion should be allowed to be published. (Hunt, 2012 pg. 540). In that
pamphlet, Milton wanted the freedom of the press to prevail. Milton wanted his vision about the
freedom of speech and freedom of the press to be shared and that is why he made pamphlets and
shared those to make sure that his views are distributed among the public. In his pamphlet, Milton
demanded the liberty to know, argue fearlessly according to the conscience. Milton said that free
expression is the fundamental and an unalterable liberty and the priority of that should be on the
higher side. Milton always had a personal feeling of resentment against the government since the
government had censored many of his creative works and especially the creations about the political
and regarding the controversial laws of that time (Hunt, 2012, pg. 540). Milton's Areopagitica can be
considered as a blunt attack on the Licensing law that parliament passed. According to this law, it
literary stated that an author's creation would be first approved by the government and then only it
will be eligible to publish for the public and approval of this law was based on acquiring a license
before publishing any book (Hunt, 2012, pg. 542). This law was put in place to confiscate and
destroy copies of any books if it seems to be disturbing or against the institution. Along with those,
it was also mentioned that government has the right to arrest and punish

Freedom Of Speech
Braedon Brown
Ms. Vyse
English II Honors
12 March 2015
Freedom of Speech: Fact or Fiction?
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution stands for one of the most basic and
essential beliefs of the American people–freedom. Too often, Americans take these freedoms for
granted, these freedoms that many countries today still do not have. How many countries/cultures in
the world today are led by dictators intent on control and power? What freedoms do these countries
actually have? Simply speaking out against the government in any such country could enforce a
severe penalty. Thankfully, however, Americans do not live in a country like this...or do they?
"Today...there are strong indications that we may have failed to create a lasting ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
On September 17, 2013 (commonly celebrated as Constitution Day), Vincenzo Sinapi–Riddle (a
student) "was collecting signatures for a petition condemning the federal National Security Agency's
domestic surveillance activities." (FoxNews) According to the article, Vincenzo apparently left the
area at which he was collecting signatures and headed for the student center. During this process,
Vincenzo began to speak about the petition with a friend. It was here, at this point in time, that a
teacher walked up and "threatened to eject Sinapi–Riddle from campus," as he was apparently
violating the school's policy on free–speech zones, which state that "political discussion[s] could not
take place outside of the free speech zone." (FoxNews) However, is not America founded on the
principles of freedom of speech (among other freedoms)? If so, then why is it that a mere 1.37% of
this college campus is open to free speech? (Staff) Vincenzo apparently wondered this as well, as he
would later file a lawsuit with the help of the organization FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights
in Education) against the college–he won. As a result, the college agreed to revise how it handled
the area of free speech. However, Citrus College has faced a similar lawsuit in the past, agreeing to
revise its views on free speech then as well; it "later reinstated its speech quarantine when it thought
no one was watching," as the president of FIRE Greg Lukianoff said in a statement, "but FIRE was
watching, and we'll continue to do so. If the speech codes come back again, so will we."

Freedom Of Speech : Freedom Of Speech?
With everything that's been happening in the news as of late, my opinions on NFL football players
kneeling during the national anthem is that there's a time and a place. And during the national
anthem at a football game is not the time or the place to protest police brutality and racism. Is
forcing a time and a place to protest taking away the rights of Kaepernick and other NFL players
following his example? In our Constitution it states that, "It guarantees freedom of expression by
prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also
guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government." Our very
foundations encourage what Kaepernick is doing, and taking away his right to speak is seems to be
unfair and not justified. But "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence" said
Daniel Schick in the article, "Veterans Defend Colin Kaepernick" (Szoldra and Woody). Kaepernick
as a professional NFL player is expected to act certain ways and refrain from political views while
wearing his uniform playing on the field. Just because he has the right to speak his mind, that does
not mean that he doesn't have to face the consequences that follow. Daniel Schick also brings up the
fact that in uniform, he was expected to keep his views to himself. Not only are soldiers supposed to
keep their personal views to themselves but so do teachers. So why is it so outlandish to expect the
same from

Freedom Essay: What Is Freedom?
What is freedom? To me, freedom is to be able to build a life of your own and to be able to have
your own opinion, as long as you follow the laws that are set for safety. Freedom is a wonderful
thing as long as we do not take advantage or break the laws. We have not always had freedom,
however. We have had to fight for it and work hard for it.
Many things have been done for freedom. We have fought wars in order to get freedom.
Many people have had to accept tragic sacrifices. Many people have had loved ones who have died
fighting for freedom. Many people have had to accept inconveniences, and accept hardships. (FDR)
Was it worth it? Definitely. What did we get out of the pain that people have had to go through? We
got freedom. We got freedom ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
We have the right to recognize shortcomings, and to continue revolution of the marketplace. (RR)
We have a lot of rights and freedom that we fought for.
One thing we got by fighting for our freedom was voting. (RR) We get to choose who we want to
run our country. People from different parties run against each other, and have debates.
There is no dictatorship. (RR) Another thing we got from fighting is a right to fair trial from a jury
of our peers. A judge has no government power. A jury listens to the trial and decided if the
defendant is guilty or innocent. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The jury is made up of
12 men and women who are common citizens. We also got a thing called the Bill of Rights.
(FDR) The Bill of Rights states that everyone has a right to a decent home. Everyone has a right to
adequate medical care. Everyone has a right a adequate protection. Everyone has a right to a good
education. Everyone has a right to a remunerative job. Everyone has a right to necessities.
Everyone has a right to raise and sell products. Everyone has the right to trade. The Bill of Rights is
wonderful because it gives us the opportunity to provide for ourselves. It also allows us to pursue
our beliefs and

Freedom Of Speech : The Power Of Freedom Of Speech
Freedom of speech would be easy if words did not have power. Guaranteeing people, the right to say
and print whatever they wanted would be easy if we could believe that words had no real effect. But
unfortunately, Americans tend to believe that words do have power and that they can anger and
inspire, cause people to rise up and act out in harmful ways. Americans celebrate speakers like
James Otis, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr., whose words inspired people to fight for
independence, advance the American experiment in republican government, and dream of a more
just society. These people's words have changed the lives and influences of millions of people today.
Freedom of speech would be easy if all people could be ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Everyday people decide to use words in a hateful way or to bully others. Humans are fallible, which
means that they can make bad choices. And the right of speech is not absolute, which means that the
boundaries of protected speech have to be constantly assessed. All of these facts complicate
America's commitment to free speech, but they also make this commitment courageous. In addition,
they leave the legal system with a difficult challenge. On the one hand, the courts are entrusted with
protecting this right to free expression, which is so central to our national experience. On the other
hand, they are charged with identifying the often blurry edges of this freedom. The following case
study is a spot–on example of the difficulty of the First Amendment in the United States. The case
began, as many do, with an act of Congress. Shortly after the United States entered into World War
I, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917. It was passed with the goals of prohibiting
interference with military operations or recruitment, preventing insubordination in the military, and
preventing the support of hostile enemies during wartime. At the time, Charles Schenck was an
important Philadelphia socialist. He was the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America, and
was opposed to the United States' entry into the war. As part of his efforts to counter the war effort,
Schenck organized the distribution of 15,000 leaflets to prospective

Freedom of speech is known to be the essence of America's democratic principles, which has created
doubts and chaos inside the country leading to further limitations. Congress has seen themselves in
the midst of internal war as protest have come down to violence and further offenses/ harm the first
amendment has rejected such awful forms of expressions placing a fence to one of the civil rights
granted by the United States. Although the first amendment stands as part of the democratic ideals
granting the people in the United States freedom of expression, the government should appropriately
limited this basic civil right, with the attempts of preventing violence, or unlawful methods of
terrorism restricting. Article 19 states that every person in the United States has the right to freedom
of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference to seek
and pass ideas through any media, thus stating that no State shall make or enforce any law that will
abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States (Funk & Wagnalls). Including any State who
deprives any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (Edmin Meese. atal).
John Stuart Mill in his book On Liberty emphasizes , "there ought to exist the fullest liberty of
professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may
be considered."(Mill, David Van.). Arguing that the fullest liberty of expression is required to

The Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech is one thing, but when it is damaging to society something can and should be
done.
Freedom of speech is solidly enshrined in the first amendment of the constitution of the USA and
this is hand in hand spelt out with the freedom of press since the two more often than not go together
in the contemporary society (Find Law, 2012). It is paramount that these provisions of expression
and means of expression (the press) are guarded with sanctity and jealousy they deserve. This is on
the backdrop of the various examples displayed across the world, particularly in the developing and
underdeveloped words where abuse of these two provisions have deteriorated into total dictatorship,
rule of the iron fist, suppression of opposition voices and curtailment of free speech and expression
of ideologies. The constitution allows us enough room to do what we want to do, whenever we want
to do and however we want it but must be within reason and under the confines of law. Freedom of
speech unregulated can amount to uncontrollable chaos and breed anarchy within the country. There
is usually a very thin line between freedom of speech and using the same to propagate hate speech,
slander, malice, incitement, derogatory harangue, insults and outright propagation of lies. All of
these are unethical and criminal depending on the context since they are forms of speech but can
lead to lawlessness and create disorder. The diverse nature of speech in the contemporary society

Recently, many NFL players have been protesting the national anthem in hope to bring awareness to
oppression of black people. However, many people have been claiming that these acts are
disrespecting the military and the country. Part of living in the U.S.A. is having the freedom to
protest and not being stripped of that right because someone doesn't think it's the appropriate time.
In 2016, football player, Colin Kaepernick, decided to stand up for his beliefs and not stand for the
national anthem. At the beginning he only sat down and nobody noticed, but on his third try, he
kneeled. Soon after that he was released from his contract for utilizing his freedom of speech.
Before being released, Kaepernick spoke out, explaining, "If they ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The NFL player's rights are taken away once they reach the field, including the right to protest,
which they are doing peacefully. Joe Lockhart, a spokesperson for the NFL, accepted the protest and
added, "We also believe our players have a right to express themselves." Protesting the national
anthem is them using their voice to bring justice to the black community and they believe that if
everyone is not going to be treated with the same justice as others, then they need to change it and
not normalize it.
The political cartoon by Joel Pett, titled "Pett on protesting National Anthem" addresses the
argument that many people have said about the issue of not participating in the National Anthem as
a form of protest. The political cartoon supports Colin Kaepernick, the first NFL player to
peacefully protest the National Anthem by not not standing up or it or kneeling during the anthem.
Many people criticized the protest as being disrespectful to the country and the people that serve it
because it shows a veteran that is supporting Kaepernick's' protest by saying "It's all cool...part of
what we fought for was your right to sit out the anthem!" This shows opposition to the opposers
because since they were the ones saying it was disrespectful to the people that serve the country, it
shows someone that has served the country, respecting his decision and justifying it by

Academic Freedom
Academic freedom in Kenya
Freedom is a basic to education in modern democracies. Freedom in education can be categorized in
the various aspects such as; Freedom of the child, academic freedom and freedom to read. Mc'Garry
and Ward, (1966) puts it: A free society and a free world imply a free educational system and a
freedom within the framework of maximum control. In such a closed society they maintained,
freedom in education may consist of ability to say or do in consequential things. The legal idea of
academic freedom originated in Germany in 1850. The Prussian Constitution declared that "science
and its teaching shall be free." In Germany, academic freedom is known as the right of faculty to
teach on any subject, that was freedom of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It also guides students in applying or various courses that will lead them to different career choices.
This was adopted by the United Nations (U.N) assembly is resolution 44/25 on the 20th November
1989. Talks of Freedom of Expression of opinion and views in Art 12 states that; every child who is
capable of forming views and opinion has a right to express them freely; in all matters that affects
them. In article number 13 on Freedom of Expression says that the child shall have a right to
freedom of expression in terms of: Freedom to seek, Freedom to receive and Freedom to impart
information and ideas of all kinds either orally or in writing in art and music. But the exercise of
these rights must respect the rights and limitations of others and must respect the country's laws and
morals.
Academic freedom consists in protecting the intellectual independence of professors, researchers
and students in the pursuit of knowledge and the expression of ideas from interference by legislators
or authorities within the institution itself. This implies that no political, ideological or religious
orthodoxy will be imposed on professors and researchers through the hiring or tenure or termination
process, or though any other administrative means by the academic institution. Nor shall legislatures
impose any such orthodoxy through their control or the university budget. This protection includes
students.
Gwin, Swanson, and Goetz, (1986) also defined academic freedom as

The Bill Of Rights And Freedom Of Freedom
There are many Amendments in The Bill of Rights and all of the rights are to the constitution to the
United States. The purpose of the The Bill of Rights is to protect individuals liberties. The Bill of
Rights was written in 1789 and was ratified in December 15, 1791, James Madison wrote The Bill
of Rights and he was the one to guide it through the New Constitution. The amendment that I chose
was the First Amendment. The First Amendment is The freedom of religion and expression:the
freedom of the press, the right to assemble to protest and petition the government. To me the First
Amendment means that you have the right to freedom of expression and be allowed to express who
you are without being judged. This amendment was added to The Bill of Rights and it's for people to
have freedoms in the U.S. This Amendment is important because if not there would have been many
angry people in the U.S because they wouldn't have any freedom to do anything.Some past issues
are recording another citizen's arrest which lead to getting arrested by the police for recording which
violates what the First Amendment stands for. There are always two sides to anything and these are
the two sides of the First Amendment. The first side, Side A is some believe that social media should
censor what we show to everybody because everybody may be shocked by it. Another side, Side B
is some people believe that social media shouldn't censor what we post because people should
accept how in the world it isn't

Religious Freedom
Should the government decide which religions have freedom to worship? The balancing act of
individual rights and religious liberty has been a contentious affair throughout American history.
Some people believe states must accommodate to all religions, including the rights of business
owners to refuse service based on their values. There are beliefs the government should have no
influence on religions. On the other hand, some believe government should balance religion with
individual rights. Governments should not be based on religion ,but states should work to protect all
religions and give them equal advantages to succeed.
People should be able to practice what their religion preaches. If the government tells them the have
to go against their values they are further decreasing their freedom to practice what they want. "The
government of the United States was created to protect the God–given rights of the people, from our
First Amendment right to free speech and religious freedom." (Bob Goodlatte) The public should
have the the choice to follow what their religion preaches, not the government. Our first amendment
explicitly provides everyone religious freedom. Therefore, the government can not choose to only
protect certain religions. "Religious freedom is one thing nearly all Americans, left and right,
religious and secular, have ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
"Religion has a growing influence in the U.S. Government that is distracting lawmakers." Bans like
no same sex or mixed raced marriage and outlawing abortion are all based on religious teachings.
People disagree with same sex marriage because it says it is not allowed in the bible. Passing laws
like these add to the others going against their beliefs. If a religion doesn't believe in same sex
marriage, that religion doesn't have to participate. It's not the government's place to make the
decision for every

The Importance Of Freedom In Journalism And The Freedom Of...
As Americans, we are taught from childhood to internalize the importance of freedom and to sing
the praises of the "land of the free." Political rallies, presidential speeches, and Internet forums light
up day after day with fierce debates over freedom of speech or religion or the right to bear arms, but
one freedom most of us fail to prioritize as we should is one unique to developed countries yet
absolutely crucial of a true democracy: freedom of the press.
Journalists expose government corruption, systemic and societal injustices, business malpractices,
human rights violations, and more truths that government and businesses would rather hide. Despite
efforts to keep certain acts under wraps, it is imperative that citizens understand all motives and
beliefs of those in power in order to be fully informed when fulfilling their civic duties of voting and
partaking in political discourse. That is the media's job, yet we are entering an era where popular
opinion of the media is ever declining and leaders encourage silencing the free press that brings to
light these pivotal issues. In my future, I hope to use a Bachelor's or Master's degrees in Journalism
and Political Science to reestablish the currently wavering honesty and integrity in some areas of
journalism that contribute to dangerous anti–media ideas. We need to protect our democracy by
demanding honesty and transparency in government and big business, but this goal can never be
achieved if our society responds to

‘Freedom of Speech Means the Freedom to Offend.'
George Orwell once famously said ‘If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people
what they do not want to hear.' This sentence sums up the very essence of free speech; it is, as
Orwell believed, the mother of all civil rights. Without the unconditional freedom to offend it cannot
exist. Ideas are, more often than not, dangerous things. There is little point in having freedom of
speech if it only defends the most popular and innocuous of opinions. The freedom to offend can
perpetrate racial, social or religious intolerance; however, conversely, it is also the only means
available to fight against such bigotry. Free speech is not something to work towards when the
world is ‘better'; it is, rather, the vital tool through ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Again, it should be noted that by use of the word ‘promote', it is implicit that the material on which
the promotion is based exists. Censoring intolerance, or forcibly punishing it by imprisonment, is
not an effective tactic. Without the freedom to offend, we cannot recognise these social problems,
nor fight them with any real conviction. Relating back to this line of debate is of course the overseas
publication of the controversial Danish cartoons. Cultural tensions within the European Muslim
communities have been building up for decades; the Danish Cartoon Armageddon of early this year
has only proven if anything, that social tolerance cannot be won through silence or apathy. Rather, it
can only be gained through the implementation of free speech. To claim however that the caricatures
championed some great ‘in defence of free speech movement' is wrong; they were, in themselves,
badly drawn, inarticulate, and obscenely unfunny. The Danish cartoons were deliberately
provocative, and as such blur the reasonable confines of expression. To lampoon the free speech
cause by using them to argue for censorship is ridiculous. One does not go around punching people
in the face to test their commitment to non–violence; similarly, the cartoons should not be used to
test the attendant dangers of absolute free

Freedom : Freedom Of Speech And Freedom Of Speech
George Guay CIV ESSAY TWO OUTLINE:
One of the most complex things in establishing in a government is determining how much freedom
the citizens in a society has. Throughout history we have seen many different type of governments
that include North Koreas' dictatorship to the United States that has a government based on
principles of democracy. In societies that have democratic governments such as the United States,
England, France, and many other western European countries, the citizens have a high degree of
freedom of speech. In addition, these people are allowed to have a high degree of freedom of
thought. Although these are both very important to have in life because they allow you to express
who you truly are, there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of thought. While
there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of thought, English Philosopher John
Stuart Mill provides his opinion on the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of thought in
his book On Liberty. Whether you are a person who is wealthy or poor, highly educated or not
educated at all, or even a minority, every person in a democratic society such as the United States is
granted the right of freedom speech. Other countries throughout Western Europe grant the right of
freedom of speech to their citizens. However, the right of freedom of speech is granted by the
United States constitution which was written during the eighteenth century. It is clear that the
countries that allow the right of freedom of speech to its citizens are better off. Just make the
comparison between the United States and French to North Korea. The people of North Korea are
living life in a lie because they are not able to show themselves for who they truly are because Kim
Jong–Un is a terrible man. That's one of the reasons why freedom of speech is very important. It
allows you to express how you feel on any given situation and reveal your true identity. For
example, there is a lot of racial equality in the United States and as a result a lot of people are taking
a stand and expressing how they truly feel. The most talked about example of taking a stand are
NFL players taking a knee or sitting down

Freedom Of Speech : The Importance Of Freedom Of Speech
Freedom of Speech Being citizens of the united states of America, American people given certain
rights and privileges. One of these importance privileges is provided to them by first amendment or
their constitution, the freedom of speech every person in the world is born with distance voice of
their won. The fundamental question is whether or not a person is actually granted freedom to use
their voice in all of its entirety, and whether or not such a thing actually exists. French law said
human may not agree with what he or she said, but they have will defend to death for their rights to
say it. Speech is fundamental to the existence of mankind and for countries man has communicated
with his fellow man, which has allowed him to dominate over most natural obstacles that have been
hurled at him. Man, being the brilliant creature that he is, implemented a set of rights and practices
for his fellow man to follow, restricting certain functions. should Most of the others so called laws
have been brought to simply by means of status, supporting this idea. So, people demanded freedom
of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid this concept links the idea that a
person is given or born with the ability to say anything, however he or she does not always have
something of importance to say. Along with freedom of speech one should also remember the
timeless Chinese prove, speck slowly, but think quickly. This proves one that words are how one is
judged, and therefor they must choose the words we use wisely and take time to think about words
that use before they spoken. The citizen of American changed and influenced freedom of speech
since its implementation, it can be traced back to the chivalry of the English knights in the middle
ages, or seen in a more modern light with the death of Martin Luther king jr. man who was
murdered as revolutionary speaker and writer, struggling for true equality in the united states of
America and all other parts. It is important for one to respect the rights of people or individuals to
express them self in a responsible manner for civilized society to maintain itself. Freedom of speech
is in danger because many middle east countries are not having

Freedom, Freedom From Want, And Freedom Of Freedom
For generations, we as a society have evaluated what we call our freedoms, as they constantly
continue to influence our quality of life. In the 1940s, President Franklin Roosevelt's Message to
Congress promised the people of America Four Freedoms, or freedoms that are imperative to human
life. These freedoms included freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and
freedom from fear. Freedom of speech goes back to the first amendment where there is the liberty of
expression. Freedom of worship allows people to practice any belief system they desire, as well as
worship the God that they please. Freedom from want meant no citizen should have to yearn for the
basic needs to survive, and should be provided with a standard living. Finally, freedom from fear
meant for there to be no fear of having to use aggression against a neighbor, in addition to being
granted peace and a sense of security. These were the guaranteed freedoms stated by the president
for the future. However, as time progressed and certain events in history began occurring, these
freedoms may have slipped from view and become less practiced. It is clear to see that the United
States government did not effectively uphold these freedoms during, the time the U.S declared war
against the Japanese, during the scare of Communism, and in the day to day life for citizens in
minority groups. One of the instances in which we can notice this unsuccessful protection of
freedoms is around 1941, when President

Freedom Of Speech
There are people in the United States that today don't understand what freedom speech actually
means and what limitations it has. They believe that Freedom of Speech is saying whatever you
want, whenever you want. But if they took the time to actually read the First Amendment they
would realize that there is a time and a place where Freedom of Speech should and should not be
used.
For instance if you get called into jury duty or you are a civilian interested in justice process, and
you are sitting in the audience for a court hearing. During the hearing everyone is supposed to be
quite so that the case maybe heard without any interruptions, but someone in the jury or in the
audience heard something they didn't agree with so they start yelling as a result. That person has
now interrupted the hearing and will ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
With that using profanity can be very offensive to some people because of either religious or
personal reasons. Things we say can trigger past event or feeling on a subject they rather forget.
While in the airport people should refrain from cursing or using foul phrases due to the fact parents
and their kids are in the facility. Kids notice and pick up things more than people think so if
someone were to curse around them they might pick it up. Another thing that should be avoid being
talked about at the airport is race or race themed jokes. People these days get very offended when
anybody of another color pokes fun at their race. While you might just be talking to a friend or on
the phone that doesn't mean no one else can hear you and is not insulted. We all know of some
people in this world that think that there is nothing wrong with the way they express themselves in
public however they still need to remember that, in a airport there are a lot of people coming from
all different backgrounds and things you say will be heard and interpreted in ways you did not
intend, so we all need to watch what we

Freedom Of Speech : The Freedom Of Speech
The First Amendment, one of the most controversial amendments in this day of age, is the freedom
of speech. Many people believe that people should have the freedom of speech without any
restrictions but others believe differently. In the movie "We are Legion" the First Amendment is
viewed differently between the two groups, the Anonymous and the rest of the world. While the
world believes that some information should be confidential and have restrictions on what should be
said and how it can be said. Anonymous believes that information should be made public for the
public and their actions should be protected by the First Amendment. Although the First Amendment
protects the group, many people believe that they should still be charged and tried for releasing
confidential information to the public. Should people be charged for exercising a right that was
given to them by the country that they live in? While some people believe that freedom of speech is
limited, others want no restrictions on the amendment, except for example if you are in someone's
home and have limited speech. As a citizen of the United States, I do not believe that Anonymous is
doing the right thing even if they are protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment by definition is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances" (Legal Information Institute, 2017). Based on this definition we can see that
Anonymous should be protected by this Amendment for the idea of "no law... prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech... peacefully assemble..." which they did
throughout the movie. Several times during the movie you saw people talk about how the groups of
people assembled peacefully by just wearing masks and waving signs. Many other saw this as acts
against the country for the sole reason that they were releasing confidential files and were worried
that they could be the next victims of their crimes. But, some believe that freedom of speech is very
well balanced but could

Essay On Freedom
Were you born with freedom? History has shown us that people had to demand their freedom, so in
a way they achieved or earned it. "Is freedom granted only if it is demanded", is a question that
people ask when they see our country or other nations' history. When we are born, we don't really
think how we received our freedom, but we got it by the help of people from the past. The following
stories are examples of the fight for freedom in our country and others: "March on Washington",
"Cairo", and also "Reading Lolita in Tehran". People had to protest for days maybe even more, just
so the government would take them serious. People didn't give up so easily, at some point they did
win and receive their freedom. As history shown us, people ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Another part of the diary that caught my eye was that they sang the national anthem like if it was
doing harm to their government, but it was "Eight months ago some young protesters from the 6
April Group had been arrested in Alexandria for singing the national anthem; it was 'instigatory' the
prosecution said". The last words the author writes were very sad "Some of us died". I'm shocked
how violent protests can get, just so the people could gain their freedom. "Reading Lolita in Tehran"
is a memoir written by Azar Nafisi, That uses your imagination even more than the other stories
because the author tells the reader to do so. "I have no choice but to appeal once again to your
imagination", she would ask you to think about a young lady named Sanaz. Inside her home she's a
very happy and colorful lady, but when she goes outside she has to cover her entire body with dull
and black clothing. "She says her goodbyes and puts on her black robe and scarf over her orange
shirt and jeans, coiling her scarf around her neck", and "put on thin lacy black gloves". Even after
doing all of that she still has to roam the streets like a dog scared of being arrested or even worst
punished for not dressing or acting properly. On the streets, there's multiply militia troops searching
for people that are disobeying the laws or doing something that shows rebellion. " Women of her
mother's generation could walk the streets freely, enjoy the company of the opposite sex, join the
police

Freedom Of The Media And Freedom Of Speech
Media has been censored for the greater good of the people since as far back as 399 BC when
Socrates was forced to drink poison for his "corruption of youth" (Mette), which can be seen as
silencing one man for the betterment of everyone, but there is always an ample amount of opinions
on such a controversial topic as Freedom of the press, or Freedom of Speech. Many nations today
believe that very strict and regulated system of governing the media and entertainment is the best
answer, such as China, where "censorship was considered a legitimate instrument for regulating the
moral and political life of the population" (Mette), but this method of governing has a major flaw.
Having such a regulated system causes a great amount of distrust and ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Mitchell Palmer, the United States attorney general under President Woodrow Wilson, the
Espionage Act essentially made it a crime for any person to convey information intended to interfere
with the U.S. armed forces prosecution of the war effort or to promote the success of the country's
enemies" (History). While it is a bad idea for the government to have the power to censor any type
of media or speech, it can be necessary in times of war, due to the fact that if a large enough amount
of US citizens are persuaded by a form of media to not support the war, focus could be lost and so
could the country as a whole. Congress found this so important that they passed another law, "the
Sedition Act of the following year, which imposed similarly harsh penalties on anyone found guilty
of making false statements that interfered with the prosecution of the war; insulting or abusing the
U.S. government, the flag, the Constitution or the military; agitating against the production of
necessary war materials; or advocating, teaching or defending any of these acts" (History). These
acts are meant to be used in time of war to prevent the loss of support and prosecute anyone who
tries to aid the enemy from within the US.
An excellent example of the Espionage act being used is the court case Schenck v. United States in
1919 it, "was the first Supreme Court case to test whether First Amendment protections of free
speech and free press

Freedom of Expression
That there are rights to which people are entitled by virtue of their humanity is not a novel idea. The
statement in italic above surely has been presented throughout history as an archetype of this
concept, specifically noting freedom of expression as a right to which all hold possession. The
assertion of this right is well represented in the Unites States Bill of Rights. Within that document
the First Amendment specifically restricts governmental powers prohibiting any such law or act
from abbreviating our freedom of speech . This keystone to the American Democratic System
spawns dialogue and discourse which forms policy, law, procedure, and so on. I truly believe that
the aforementioned claim is accurate; everyone has the right to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
There is a growing population of parents and educators that suggest game companies shouldn't be
allowed to create violent games or to include sexual content . If we do allow our concept of agency
to include companies or organizations then can we allow a restriction on the creativity of game
makers? If everyone, including game makers, has the right to express themselves then it would seem
that censorship, beyond the parental rating systems, would violate that right.
However, consider special interest groups and large corporations that provide campaign funding to
particular candidates in governmental elections. In 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled that the
government "could not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections ." This means
that some of the most powerful organizations on the planet can exercise their freedom for expression
by providing unlimited funding to support candidates that further their business's agenda. For all
intents and purposes, those who accept conditional special interest funding possess the capacity to
campaign with greater intensity, allowing them exposure other candidates fail to get. These
candidates run the risk of being indebted to the 20% of the population that control 90% of the
financial wealth in the US . It would seem that these corporations, while granted freedom of
expression, hold great influence over candidates in US elections. This means that the 80% of the
population, which hold 10% of the US financial

Freedom of Speech Essay The founding fathers embarked on a drastic life change because the
English government was over steeping their boundaries. Once they had established their new world
the founding fathers realized that we would need to create rules that our government had to abide by.
This documentation is known as The Constitution, when writing the Constitution, the most
important and difficult to understand amendment was the first. Freedom of speech is a very difficult
freedom to understand, people must first realize what is given to them under the first amendment.
Then it is imperative to understand where another American's rights begin. If every American
understood where these boundaries lie our nation would be in a better situation. Instead, people's
actions are aligned with believing Americans have a freedom to say what they believe until their
statements do not align with what these individual's beliefs. The phrase that I have always been
taught is, "Your rights end where my nose begins." The first amendment states, "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances (cite)." It can be challenging to
understand how the founding father's words are meant to be applied today, but once you break down
their words it is a little easier. The first

Freedom Is The Highest Point Of Freedom
Freedom has its different demographics and views it can perceived into in which I don't think it can
ever justify to a deserved definition. I think we certainly live in the theory and allusion of freedom
but also compared to a vast amount of countries it is definitely looked upon as a free society. A
country could never reach the highest point of freedom because that is something of the unordinary
and we as a country are more close to freedom than any other country will be. Being able to express
ourselves by voting, voicing opinions, being of whatever sexuality and religion without interference
is a remarkable sense of freedom and luxury many wish to attain. For me specifically, I think the
most important factor of living in the American life is the privilege I have of going to school and
being educated. If I was never given the opportunity of such a tremendous fortune, I could never
imagine residing in a place that would be against it. To me education is not a something that I should
fight for it should be a given, it should be self–explanatory as to why it is so extremely important
and the fact that some countries deny their people of such grant is one of the many reasons I believe
America to be a free country. Not being permitted the right to education especially because I am a
female is not a form of life anyone should have to suffer let alone a form of freedom people should
be idealized to live with. Definitely living in the United States gives me the advantage to be

Essay on Freedom
Freedom remains the sole basis for American society as we know it. Without freedom the great
nation of America would have never been founded. To understand the true principles of freedom,
one must understand the scope of the word. Philosophical freedom encompasses the ability to make
choices without restraints, while political freedom is the state of being free rather than in physical
confinement. Despite the importance of these ideas to our founding fathers, freedom has lost much
of its importance in modern American society. The failure to stress the importance of freedom has
diminished the quality of life for the entire American populous Positive liberty is the freedom for
one to become all one can (Postive Liberty). This idea ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
To understand the importance of freedom in American society, we must go back to the beginning:
the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson framed the constitution around the concepts set forth by
John Locke, the father of liberty. The Declaration of Independence created a way to free ourselves
from the injustices done upon us by the English monarchy. This document set forth the basis of what
a government can reasonably do to protect and tax its citizens, before being beyond the appropriate
scope of its power. When the government exceeds this power one must consider this an infringement
on freedom. This governmental basis becomes extenuated in the Bill of Rights, the foundation of the
US constitution. The Bill of Rights remains the true source of our freedoms as American. These
freedoms include speech, religion etc. These freedoms were "to be held dear" by all members of our
society. As a result off the plasticity of these amendments, the American elitists can interpret these
for their own ideas. Since the beginning of America, Elitists have found a way to hinder the lower
and middle classes involvement in government through the enormous amount of money required to
create a successful election campaign. Taking on an elected role in government is supposed to be a
freedom every member of society can achieve, but with the fiscal importance of campaigning it is
not possible. In the 2004 election campagins alone, canidates spent $144 million dollars out of

Liberty vs Freedom in Hobbes's Leviathan

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Nicole Savoie

More from Nicole Savoie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Liberty vs Freedom in Hobbes's Leviathan