Is there a right to free speech? Social Sciences Essay

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Is there a Right to Free Speech?
Freedom of speech is one of the treasured rights that every person in a democratic country like the United States is entitled to enjoy. The constitution provides for free speech, even though there are cases when this right is threated by the government and learning institutions. Article nineteen of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has a right to access information, express opinion, and impart ideas from any source without external interference. Free speech has only remained theoretically possible. Every attempt to access this right has however, faced limitations, especially considering that too much freedom interferes with the rights of others. Free speech is partial, when it needs to be absolute. This paper argues that there is a right to free speech and there is no need for censorship and regulations.
The right to free speech means that everyone is free to access information, search for ideas and opinions, or share what one wishes, and disseminate it to others without facing threats. In a country where the right to free speech is respected, people should be free to access every type of information and sharing their opinions and ideas without facing censorships. Media censorship has become a threat to free speech. Censorship of media undermines free speech, considering that everyone is entitled to enjoy their rights without threats from others. According to McGowan, free speech entails both actions and words (769). Actions involve a person wearing the a T-shirt with some writings that communicate a message, wearing a hat supporting a politician, or even putting on wrist bands critiquing or supporting a politician. When taken in the spoken context, proponents of free speech would argue for freedom to associate and interact with others irrespective of a person’s political orientation. The government has, however, played an undermining role when it comes to free speech. The constitution provides for equal protection under the law. Even if people do not wish to subscribe to ideas of a person, they have the right to respect the person and choose what they wish to listen to. In the recent past, the topic of abortion has become a debatable debate in mainstream media and the real life. Regulation and censorship has become the order of the day, even when it is evident that regulation and censorship interferes with the right to free speech. Proponents of censorship and regulation of pornography argue that it interferes with the moral standards of the society. They propose that pornography should be banned even in private, especially because it interferes with the moral standards of the society and religious principles that the society has cultivated for ages. What these proponents fail to realize is that people have the right to choose what is right. A mature person has learned to discriminate between what is right and what is morally wrong. If watching pornographic materials provides one with a sense of satisfaction, then nobody has a moral right to lift or suspend this right. People should only focus on the outcomes of behavior.
While the argument above seeks to provide a sense of satisfaction for people that feel that they have constitutional right to freedom of speech, there is also a concern on what should be termed as freedom. When arguing for freedom of speech, one has to consider that there is no right that is bigger than other rights. All rights are equal, and the process of pursuing individual rights should not pose a threat to rights of others. According to Lukianoff and Haidt, college students have become too sensitive on issues of rights to free speech (3). I think that there is nothing like sensitivity when it comes to respecting the rights of others and maintenance of law and order. Everyone has a right to free speech and expression, but the process of enjoying these rights should not pose threat to the existing law and order. A student putting on a racist wristband is interfering with the rights of others. Even if the person does not go out and pose physical attack to others, the mere act of putting on the racist wristband is an indication of supporting racism, considering that the society has made significant improvements from racism. Additionally, utterance of racist remarks may be considered a right to free speech, but what matters most is the manner in which people will react to what has been uttered. If a person’s remarks interfere with the right of others, then the moral society does not have a moral ground of supporting such remarks. The next point is on the issue of censorship of pornographic materials and regulation of programs that are considered to be morally unacceptable. The internet has broken barriers to communication. People that decide to watch pornographic materials are no different from people that download and watch horror movies. According to Gruen, pornography depicts women as objects that enjoy humiliation or sexual activities when they are being raped or when they engage in sexual activities (156-157). The moral demeaning of pornography is when it reduces women to objects of pleasure. They are objectified and denied their moral standards in their society. The most painful area is when children are used in pornographic materials. A moral society could consider raising children with equal moral standards where there is respect for womanhood. Womanhood, in this context, refers to the “person” and not an object for sexual pleasure. One of the concerns with pornography is that it encourages immoral behavior such as rape and harassment for women. A person that has been exposed to pornographic material does not look at a woman as a person. Whenever he looks at the woman, the first thing that comes to his mind is the sexual aspect of the woman. Cases of rape have increased in the recent past due to exposure to pornographic materials. While it is true to argue that rape does not have a direct role to play in rape and sexual violence, it ha...