Superlative question. We are currently drowning in political correctness. Contemporary culture seems to think we should only say, publish or broadcast thoughts that are 'acceptable' to the majority of listeners. Nothing could be, constitutionally, further from the truth. Free speech need not be 'popular' or 'acceptable', much less 'trendy'. If none of us can freely express opinion and fair comment, then we are all headed toward an antlike lowest common denominated cultural communism undreampt of by Plato's Republic. Express yourself!!!
On paper, the Bill of Rights defends any form of freedom of expression in the First Amendment. The courts have backed this amendment several times such as the 'Texas vs Johnson' case of 1989.
However, this isn't always the case; see the 'Roth vs United States' case of 1957.
The Bill of rights should protect freedom of speech, however undesirable it is. However, it is down to the courts of the time to uphold this.
Actually, the legal standard for protected speech varies. Look at the link below for a better discussion of the different types of speech, and how and where exceptions to the blanket protection we usually afford speech.
The popularity of the speech content is not legally relevant - that is, it doesn't matter (from a legal standpoint) if people like the speech or not. In fact, the general rule is that the more unpopular the speech, the greater protection it should be afforded.
The freedom of speech is important to protect it because if we dont we could lose are prvalge to have such freedom as we do
The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech ESPECIALLY if it's unpopular. After all, there's no need to protect anyone's right to say things everyone else says and agrees with.
No. The right for anonymous political campaigning was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) case: "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority...It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society".
freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to protect from self incrimination, right to vote,
The Supreme Court recognizes "privileged speech" for members of Congress so long as that speech is
Censorship should be used selectively and only in cases where the content is harmful or dangerous, such as promoting violence or hate speech. In a democratic society, individuals should have the freedom to choose what they want to read or watch. A balanced approach that considers both freedom of expression and protection of society is ideal.
Guarantees of free speech and press are intended to protect the expression of unpopular views. Second, prohibits the use of obscene words, the printing and ditributing of obscene materials, and false advertising.
Infinitive
president's
They didn't.
freedom of speech
Freedom of speech