Free Speech Essay

1. Sarah Miller
Dr. Blanco
First Year Seminar 100-205
30 January 2015
Suffocating Freedom of Speech
The United States First Amendment is the freedom of religion and freedom of
expression. Many times when something is printed in a newspaper blasting another religion or
another race, people brush it off as “freedom of speech,” but is that really all it is? Technology
allows our comments and views to be heard around the world within seconds of “posting” them.
Regulating free speech would benefit and have many positive effects on the United States by
making us safer due to being less offensive to other countries.
Technology plays a major role in today’s society. Many ask if technology helps us as
much as some say. One major underlying issue is the use of technology when it comes to
freedom of speech. The Internet has allowed people to share their thoughts and ideas with
anyone who can access it. Freedom of speech is mainly an American amendment, even though
other countries have adopted the idea, but with the internet it is not just local anymore. Anything
you post online, whether it be on a blog, social media site or anywhere, everyone can view it.
Meaning if you voice your opinion on another countries traditions, views, or religion, they can
read it as soon as you post it. (Greenblatt 3)
This allows for much controversy over freedom of speech not just be localized to the
United States anymore because it affects any person who thinks or believes a way that someone
does not agree with. Blasphemy is what many call freedom of speech because it allows people

2. to berate and belittle others verbally and in a written manner. Many countries have implemented
laws and rules against posting such things on the. The United States has tried promoting
freedom of speech within other countries but most have rejected because they want to keep
journalists regulated. Religion is a big concern when it comes to freedom of speech and
blasphemy because it is almost always the cause for debate. Posting online about another
person’s beliefs or views can be subject to fines and lawsuits. (Greenblatt 7)
Regulating free speech would benefit the United States by making it safer and less
offensive. Journalists sometimes do not take into regard what their words may cause. The
Charlie Hebdo attack was caused by cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that the newspaper
released. No one who took part in creating those cartoons could have imagined the
repercussions, but it happened. An American-made anti-Muslim video caused protests in
Kolkata which no one knew would happen because of the video. The acceptance of freedom of
speech in the United States has lead Americans to believe they can say whatever they like about
anything without much repercussions. (Greenblatt 9)
More times than not, we are attacked and cause uproars because of things we say or post.
Many say the Boston bombing and even September 11th was caused by freedom of speech being
taken too far. Sometimes things happen that can be directed back at things we say or do, yet we
do not consider these things when we are in the process of saying or doing them. Sometimes
journalists writes and prints hurtful things that are untrue and conclusion based, not fact based.
They make assumptions about people and practically slander them without thinking that it may
negatively impact someone’s life. This happens a lot with celebrities or big court cases. People

3. begin to draw their own conclusion of what happened and they must voice this outrageous
accusation. Sometimes people plead that magazines or newspapers not publish or print these
things but sometimes the damage is done before they know. There have also been cases where
magazines, newspapers and even news broadcasters have had to apologize for false information
or a false story. (Bhagwat 17)
In this article, the debate mentions democracies and self-regulation. By implementing
self-regulation when it comes to free speech journalists would be held accountable in court for
what they say. Anthony Mills argues that journalists should be allowed free speech with self-
regulation because they tell us what is going on in the world. Steven Barnett claims journalists
are vicious and print hurtful things and that they should be held accountable. Neither say that
journalists should have absolute free rein. They both agree that there should be self-regulation
but Barnett argues there should be a group that oversee and makes sure it is being done. Mills
says to take them to court if they step out of line. But what is this line if you allow self
regulation? (Greenblatt 17)
Free speech should be regulated so that it is not categorized or seen as blasphemy, slander
or offensive to the point of causing attacks. I agree with the comment that, “Speech of all
speakers and groups is treated and regulated alike, regardless of point of view or message.”
(Kozlowski 1.) Because to be fair and just we must regulate it all the same. There will not
always be a black and a white, sometimes there is a gray area but these areas must be established
to regulate speech. America will always be subject to attacks for what we say and believe but
by regulating speech it will drastically cut down the attacks. It will no longer be accepted for

4. people to post, or publish blasting another race or religion with no evidence and no care of
offense. Although it would be very difficult to determine where the line should be drawn, the
payoff for peace and security will remind us that watching what we say is actually benefiting us.
This regulation should stretch as far as to include social media websites as well. Blasphemy and
bullying is not tolerated in schools because we do not want our children subject to pain and fear
but yet grown adults do basically the same thing when they degrade other religions or races.
(Kozlowski 3)
Freedom of speech should be regulated because it is more dangerous than it is good. It
causes attacks and wars due to the offense it inflicts. It is hurtful when newspapers or magazines
print false stories. Technology allows our word to spread much quicker than we think. To
create a safer and more peaceful environment freedom of speech should be regulated to not allow
hate speech and blasphemy.

5. Work Cited
Bhagwat, Ashutosh. "Terrorism And Associations." Emory Law Journal 63.3 (2014): 581-
638. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Jan. 2015.
Greenblatt, Alan. "Free Speech at Risk." CQ Researcher 26 Apr. 2013: 377-400. Web. 29 Jan.
2015.
Kozlowski, James C. "Festival Policy Silences Annoying Preaching." Parks &
Recreation (2012): 25-29. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Jan. 2015.
Shearmur, Jeremy. "Free Speech, Offence And Religion." Policy 22.2 (2006): 21-25. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 29 Jan. 2015.