No. It is a primary right and all people have the right to express themselves. Without the freedom of speech the government can be oppressive and restrict other rights. When the government is not doing its job, breaking laws, or taking Rights a free press is needed to bring the government back into line with the constitution. The freedom of speech is one of the most important rights in the constitution because it also allows for protest of government actions.
Yes, there are too many crazy people right now coming up with crazy ways to express their sick thoughts and opinions.
---- The Freedom of Expression is a truly valuable right and must be protected from unwarranted restriction. Expression of unpopular or dissident viewpoints is necessary in a free society, and is a part of how we change as a country. We also must protect each other from abuse in the guise of expression. Some might argue that a bogus bomb threat is expression, but that sort of act is not, and should not be, protected. Also, two court cases about limiting freedom of expression are listed below: In the case, United States v. O'Brien, a young man burned his draft card showing his feelings against the Vietnam War. There was a federal law stating that burning a draft card was a crime. O'Brien took this case took this case to the Supreme Court where they ruled 7-1 that it was a crime to burn a draft card even if you were showing your opinions. The Supreme Court said that the law was constitutional and did not violate the First Amendment.
This next example is the exact opposite: In Tinker vs. Des Moines, teenagers John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Echardt, decided to wear armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The principals of the Des Moines school district asked the students to take the armbands off. They refused to do so, and they were suspended from school. The students took this case all the way to the Supreme Court where they won 7-2 because the Supreme Court thought it was violating their freedom of expression.
Yes, even now because you can't just yell out"fire" in a crowded movie house!
no freedom of speech should never be restricted no matter what even if its the end of the world
The Sedition Act limited freedom of speech and protest.
The Four Freedoms speech was given by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941. It detailed the four freedoms that he believed people everywhere should have. They were freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
no its the same.
Singapore is a dictatorship. It pretends to be a democracy but it's leader allows no freedom of speech and sues anyone who challenges his power. Basically he's a coward and should be sent to the gallows.
It limited freedom of speech
One problem with the sedition act was that it limited the freedom of speech for people. It didn't allow people to say anything bad about the country or the government.
congress
It limited freedom of speech.
intentionally spreads harmful lies about somebody. (APEX)
no freedom of speech should never be restricted no matter what even if its the end of the world
The Sedition Act limited freedom of speech and protest.
It limited freedom of speech
Generally, no. There are some very limited exceptions.
Sedition and espionage actAdded: It was passed in 1917 and repealed in 1921
In Kenya, citizens have freedom of speech, and religion, but to a limited amount.
Freedom of speech (apex)