Freedom of speech is increasingly at risk due to government repression and concerns over security and offending religions. New technologies have made it easier to spread messages globally but also allow greater government monitoring. While the US strongly protects free speech, some content offends other countries and cultures, contributing to terrorism threats. Regulating speech could increase global allies and decrease threats, but may undermine core democratic values of free expression. Ongoing debates focus on balancing these national security concerns with civil liberties.

1. Nease 1
Madeline Nease
FYS
Freedom of Speech
Since the beginning freedom of speech has been an issue. The United States has gone all
over the world to help other countries battle for their freedom of speech. Recently, governments
all over the world have been questioning and acting on liming free speech due to security concerns
and offending different religions (Greenblatt). Alan Greenblatt asks his readers, will free speech
survive the government repression?
In the article “Free Speech at Risk: Will it survive government repression?” by Alan
Greenblatt there are many underlying issues. (Greenblatt). The internet and social media websites
such as Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook have become a part of modern day American’s everyday
life. Today’s generation is more likely to see something and be persuaded by it if it is put on
internet rather than the regular television news. According to Greenblatt, “new media tools make
it easier for activists to spread their messages farther and faster than was concelvable during the
days of the mimeograph, or even the fax.”(Greenblatt). Social media has become the revolutionary
way to spread messages all around the globe. Greenblatt quoted Mahoney, the Committee to
Protect Journalists deputy director, “‘what’s happening with new technology is that it’s making
publication of these stories easier, and they’re reaching a bigger audience’”. (Greenblatt) The
problem with this source of campaigning/ advertising is the government can monitor like never
before according to Eva Galperin. Greenblatt describes the new technology as a “two-edged
sword”. (Greenblatt).

2. Nease 2
An extremely sensitive topic that is always being debated when it comes to free speech is
the religion factor. According to Greenblatt, only three people between 2007-2011 were arrested
on Blasphemy charges (mocking the Muslim Prophet Muhammad). (Greenblatt).While just in the
past year (2013) more than a dozen such arrests have occurred. The group getting targeted the most
seem to be the atheists being targeted for this crime and getting jail time because of their posts via
social media, according to Matt Cherry, the editor of the IHEU report.
The First Amendment is extremely important in the United States, according to Greenblatt,
the United States has absolute protection of free speech of any other country on Earth. He says,
“Many believe free expression is not only essential to democracy but a value Americans should
help export to other countries.” Meaning, the United States is willing to do anything to help a
countries citizens gain freedom of speech. The problem is that this forms many enemies from
around the world. According to Greenblatt, some Americans are afraid that our freedom of
expression may offend other nations’ governments and people by keeping free speech rights. More
and more is being seen because citizens from other countries can go on the same websites as
Americans and see the offensive hateful speech. Barack Obama, president of the United States,
said, “Anyone with a cellphone can spread offensive views around the world with a click of a
button.”
One of the biggest issues on hand is whether to or to not regulate the Press, freedom of
speech and freedom of press go hand in hand. Some say that it would protect the citizens and some
say it is our god given right to say, or write, whatever we want.
There are benefits of regulating free speech, number one it would create a lot more allies
for the United States and the citizens would not feel as threatened. Greenblatt expressed how many
citizens agree that Americans take freedom of speech too far, offending cultures and religions is

3. Nease 3
just blatantly inappropriate (Greenblatt). It would be a good thing for the citizens in the US who
practice other religions other than Christianity. People whose religions get mad fun of or are often
called evil, would be free to worship without worrying what is going to be said about their kind of
people in a local magazine or news. There would be less hate speech, which could make our
country a better, happier place. This could also act as an opportunity for America to report the
good going on in America and around the world.
There are severe effects of the unregulated speech that is occurring in the United States.
Hating on other religions and trying to force our freedom of speech on other countries is doing
nothing but making more and more enemies. Places like Pakistan have actually blocked internet
sites in attempts that their citizens do not see America’s words on freedom of speech and press
(Greenblatt). The free speech we have here sometimes is actually causing big problems in other
countries (Greenblatt). A Florida Pastor, Terry Jones, actually threatened to burn the Quran and
actually went through with it. Also, an Anti-Muslim film called “Innocence of Muslims” was
filmed, President Obama spoke with the United Nations shortly after explaining that due to the
first amendment, he could not confiscate the video, according to Greenblatt (Greenblatt). Both
these events set off heavy riots in the Muslim world. What is next? We could be in serious
dangerous if they ever get mad enough to bomb or do any other type of terrorists threatens, such
as the twin tower attack in September of 2001.
A democratic society is a society that is a by the people, for the people kind of system. The
United States was built on freedom, our founding fathers decided it was the citizens’ God given
right to be free and speak of what they want. If freedom of speech is regulated, would America
even be considered a democracy anymore? If freedom of speech was regulated I believe it would
break down the “Land of the Free” and it would cause all sorts of issues. Especially because the

4. Nease 4
United States have been free so long, the citizens would not know what to do, the news stations
would shut down, the bottom line is people would not be happy.
The First Amendment of the United States, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of press
has been causing issues with terrorism all over the world. America is going into other countries,
specifically Islamic countries, and attempting to liberate their citizens. It is helping the citizens,
yes, but it is potentially hurting our own. Freedom of Speech needs to be regulated in order to
prevent terrorist attacks and keep the American people safe.
When the attacks on the twin towers occurred in New York City in 2001, this sparked the
Age of Terror, according to Ashutosh Bhagwat, author of the article “Terrorism and Associations”
(Bhagwat). He describes how the United States Antiterrorism policy was focused on threats from
abroad. They never thought of the issues going on at home (Bhagwat). They started doing criminal
prosecutions on citizens who were supporters of terrorism in the United States (Bhagwat). This
started constitutional battles regarding the free speech promised by the First Amendment. If
freedom of speech was regulated, and reporters could not report on issues like this and people
could not openly talk about it, this would have never been a problem and the terrorism supporters
could have been arrested without question and our people would have been safer.
Social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram are a part of most Americans’
everyday lives. It is a way to keep up with people and events all over the world. Unfortunately,
this means terrorism and terrorist threats are spreading in this way now too. An Article by Steven
R. Morrison called, “Terrorism Online: Is Speech the Same as it Ever Was?” questions whether or
not the first amendment is built to last the new online terrorist speech or if it will have to evolve

5. Nease 5
as the speech gets more serious and spreads farther.(Morrison). This article does believe the first
amendment can last through the internet terrorism era, but needs updated with what it can and
cannot say.
The January 7, 2015 terrorist attack on the writers of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo, has
caused panic in the United States according to Walter Olson, the writer of “Blasphemy is at the
Front Lines of Free Speech Today”(Olson). The Charlie Hebdo newspaper wrote a series of comics
making fun of the Muslim prophet, Muhammad, which is considered blasphemy, which is why
they were attacked by the Muslims (Olson). This is an example of things that could happen in the
United States as well. The Yale University Press was even afraid to print the pictures of the comics
when doing a story on the attack (Olson). I say rather than living in fear, America should regulate
the freedom of speech and demand no one speaks of other religions or countries in a way of hate
speech. It is better for the citizens and the press this way. Terrorists attacks will not happen,
because there is no threat and the citizens of the United States can remain free and safe from harm.

6. Nease 6
Works Cited
Bhagwat, Ashutosh. "Terrorism And Associations." Emory Law Journal 63.3 (2014): 581-638.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Jan. 2015
Greenblatt, Alan. "Free Speech at Risk." CQ Researcher 26 Apr. 2013: 377-400. Web. 29 Jan.
2015.
Morrison, Steven R. "Terrorism Online: Is Speech The Same As It Ever Was?." Creighton Law
Review 44.4 (2011): 963-1002. Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Jan. 2015
Olson, Walter. "Blasphemy Is At The Front Lines Of Free Speech Today." Time.Com (2015):
N.PAG. Academic Search Premier. Web. 30 Jan. 2015.