The term Freedom of Speech has a definition that can only be interpreted by the United States Judicial Systems. There are also some administrative lawmaking agencies and Legislators who attempt to interpret the Constitution and create regulations or laws, but in the end, the Judicial System has the final authority in regulating Individual Freedoms. This paper will discuss reasons or aspects of why Free Speech rights should and should not be regulated more and why I feel our Freedom of Speech should be less regulated. Freedom of speech is not necessarily limited to the spoken words of the people, it also includes several different forms of Media, for example, Radio, Television, Internet, etc. Mostly in this paper all forms in general are included in these viewpoints.
First we must look at reasons why people would want the Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech more regulated. There are several rights for individuals that are outlined in the U.S. Constitution, but when there are two conflicting rights, which one should prevail? These reasons can be found in the book called Freedom of Speech in the Marketplace of Ideas, written by authors Douglas M. Fraleigh and Joseph S. Tuman. This book describes many different aspects of our constitutional right to Freedom of Speech, its history, its creation, and its delayed enforcement and application to all humans.
As I stated before, which rights should prevail? “Individual Rights Should Not Supercede Communitarian Needs.” (Fraleigh & Tuman, 10) Basically this states that regardless of one individuals rights to freedom of speech, it shouldn’t interfere with the rights of others. There are many Freedoms outlined in the U.S. Constitution that conflict with other individuals’ rights to free speech. For example, the right of an individual to speak freely does not allow him/her to verbally threaten the lives of others. By doing so would interfere with other peoples’ rights to free association. It is a very simple principle that is pretty much self-explanatory. It has been found in Supreme Courts and Federal Courts around the country that other rights of a community are more protected than the rights to free speech of an individual. This also helps alter the morals of the communities which is something many people are hoping to do for the younger generations.
“Speech Rights Should Not Supercede Other Individual Rights.” (Fraleigh & Tuman, 12) This is extremely similar to the last aspect of conflicting rights. Many people believe that the rights of one individual should not supercede the rights of another individual. For another generic example, calling someone an Ebola Infested Leper may interfere with that other person’s rights. If other people heard the person calling the second person an Ebola Infested Leper, people may not want to associate with him, thus it has interfered with his/her right to free association. That’s just unacceptable in such a complex and civilized country. Many people in the past have wanted to ban a wide aspect of publishing, art, and other such things that might be classified as Pornography. These people were Anthony Comstock (Fraleigh & Tuman, 82) and a Dr. Thomas Bowdler. These were the leading pornographic prohibitionists in the 19th Century. Many valuable art pieces were confiscated because of their influence in politics. These people basically over-censored the area of pornography. Dr. Thomas Bowdler was noted for his rewriting of Shakespearean art and the Bible so they didn’t have sexual content or hinting of sexuality. (Sableman, 1)
“Speech Rights Do Not Guarantee Effective Freedom.” (Fraleigh & Tuman, 12) The terms of Free Speech and Effective Freedom may get confusing in the ways they are meant by Fraleigh & Tuman, but it is rather simple. Freedom of speech was originally intended to help the people voice their opinions or their feelings on the government, and on issues at hand. It didn’t necessarily state that you could say negative and demeaning things to other people. Demeaning speech is not considered to be an “Effective Freedom,” because it doesn’t really have very much useful purposes. It is well known that someone could voice their negative opinions in a more civilized manner utilizing more intellectual words rather than foul language. There is very little protection for negative demeaning speech. Why do some people like to use demeaning speech and others