Argumentative Essay: The First Amendment

The First Amendment outlines free speech as the right to speak, write, and share ideas and opinions without facing punishment from the government. Without the Constitution, Americans wouldn’t have basic rights and their actions and decisions would be controlled, stressing the importance of free speech. Therefore, the limitations on free speech should be no more than that said in the First Amendment as further restrictions would eliminate the foundations of human rights and freedoms in a democracy, lower one’s knowledge of their individualism, and would ultimately suppress a peaceful society. Free speech may be discussed in a multitude of ways, both positive and negative. However, the idea of limiting such freedoms is either or. It must be

Basic human rights are granted under democratic governments, ensuring peace across a nation. Arguably the most important, the First Amendment is “meant to keep the power to decide what’s valuable expression and what isn’t out of the hands of public officials” (Nott, 1131). Giving our rights up so that some people may be less offended crumbles the core pillars of freedom on which a democracy is built. When the government is making our decisions for us, we don’t control our own lives. Not being able to do things without fear of prosecution is a true and prevalent problem. However, it is a problem that can be avoided given the proper rights, such as freedom of speech. Not only are these rights pertinent, but the standard way to treat humans. Political cartoon artist, Wilkinson, depicts Uncle Sam holding the umbrella of freedom over all kinds of people of different races, ethnicity, and religion (1134). Although most experience contrasting upbringings, that does not take away from their privilege to their right to freedom, especially living under a democracy where freedom of speech, among others, is automatically entitled to you. Revoking such a fundamental right is detrimental to both that person and their government. No matter the differences among those who make up a population, under a democracy, it would undermine necessary freedoms to limit such things as outlined in the First

Abuse of freedom of speech can be defined as hate speech or such speech that instigates and can create many negative impacts. Rosenbaum highlights research that shows “participants who were subjected to both physical and emotional pain, that emotional harm is equal in intensity to that experienced by the body and is even more long-lasting and traumatic” (1125). In the case of discriminatory language, if truly it is problematic, then some form of law limits and restricts it. While it is said that hate speech can cause negative effects on one’s mental and physical health, it was never isolated to be the sole cause of these impacts. Although hate speech may contribute, it is unreasonable to blame emotional harm on hate speech as the world arguably contains plenty of negative things that people are exposed to daily and can easily poison someone’s mind. In other instances, it can be seen that extremist hate speech could’ve been suppressed early instead of letting its negative repercussions seep into the world. Nielsen, on the topic of discriminatory language, states that negative consequences could include “cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder” (1133). Repeatedly, it is apparent that there are a plethora of negative effects that seemingly stem from hate speech. However, it’s not fair to limit everyone’s free speech in response, especially