Humanities
Barstow Community College Freedom of Speech Argumentative Essay

Barstow Community College

Question Description

I don’t understand this English question and need help to study.

Keep in mind that the First Amendment does not sanction the following types of speech anyway:

1- Incitement to illegal activity and/or imminent violence

2- Defamation and libel

3- Obscenity

4- Threats and intimidation

5- False advertising.

  • Research: Find four articles on this subject, two making the case against and two making the case for them. Choose only from reputable websites.
  • Brainstorming: Based on your experience and what you’ve read in those sources, make a list of reasons for and against, then decide where you stand on the issue and formulate your thesis statement.
  • Writing the essay: In a well-organized essay discuss this issue and support your claims with quotes and information from your sources. Devote a good part of your paper to presenting the opposite point of view and respond to it. Avoid fallacies and emotional or vulgar language.

Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Attached.

Freedom of Speech – Outline
Thesis statement: Primarily, free speech is fundamental in a democracy but it should not be
absolute because of people who are focused on extremism to the point of harming other innocent
people in society. Thus, the government should intervene to promote co-existence in society.
I.
II.

Introduction
Proponents of absolute freedom of speech argue that no one can be the thought police to
what people say in a democratic society because people should be trusted to discern the
truth from a lie or propaganda.

III.

Proponents also argue that censoring speech will lead to censoring ideas such that there
will be no opposing aspects that can help in establishing new concepts or solving
problems from an angle of enlightenment.

IV.

Hurtful or unpopular speeches can be quite helpful in court cases or document
confirmations.

V.

Conclusion


Running head: FREEDOM OF SPEECH

1

Freedom of Speech
Name
Institution

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

2
Freedom of Speech

In the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment allows Americans to enjoy the freedom
of speech such that they can express their thoughts, opinions, and sentiments without the fear
of persecution or censorship. This freedom, as well as that of expression, is among the
explicit fundamental rights of people with which the United States supersedes other countries
(Teresa, 2012). In a democracy, people should be able to criticize the government or leaders
if they feel short-changed. However, some people take advantage of the provisions in the
First Amendment to offend others or instigate violence in society (Gonchar, 2018).
Essentially, the First Amendment does not condone negative expressions such as defamation
or libel, incitement to illegal activities, false advertising, threats and intimidation, and
obscenity. Nevertheless, there are blurred lines in the context of freedom of expression,
freedom of speech, and people's opinions (Onder, 2008). As long as the views are wellcontrolled and expressed, they should not be banned. What one person considers offensive
might not be offensive to another. Therefore, establishing a standard system and balance in
the aspect of communication is quite a challenge because of the pervasiveness of the elements
in the First Amendment. Primarily, free speech is fundamental in a democracy. Still, it should
not be absolute because of people who are focused on extremism to the point of harming
other innocent people in society. Thus, the government should intervene to promote coexistence in society.
Proponents of absolute freedom of speech argue that no one can be the thought police
to what people say in a democratic society because people should be trusted to discern the
truth from a lie or propaganda. Without absolute freedom of speech, influential people such
as AOC and Donald Trump would neither gain nor exercise power. Thus, citizens should not
be limited because they are less powerful. The president enjoys America's liberal society to
speak against other politicians bluntly so the citizens should not be limited. Also, if

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

3

extremists can ...

henryprofessor (72972)
UC Berkeley

Anonymous
I was on a very tight deadline but thanks to Studypool I was able to deliver my assignment on time.

Anonymous
The tutor was pretty knowledgeable, efficient and polite. Great service!

Anonymous
Heard about Studypool for a while and finally tried it. Glad I did caus this was really helpful.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4