Should Freedom of Speech include Opinions Objectionable to the Majority of People

Freedom of speech should include acts or opinions that may be objectionable to the majority of people.
Describe a specific situation in which an act or opinion objectionable to the majority of the people should not be protected by the right to free speech. Discuss what you think determines when an objectionable act should be protected under freedom of speech.
___

The freedom of speech, as a cornerstone of American democracy, allows citizens the broad right to express thoughts and opinions without threat of government reprisal. In contrast to countries without this freedom, the United States prohibits the imprisonment of political critics and those expressing objectionable opinions. The freedom of speech encompasses not only verbal speech but nonverbal and symbolic speech, including among others, art, music, pornography, etc. While certain situations demand limits on this freedom, the right to express oneself should be kept as broad as possible in order to maintain an open society.

In general, the freedom of speech should include acts and opinions objectionable to the majority of people. Allowing discourse about controversial topics is a sign of a healthy, free society. The freedom to discuss objectionable ideas allows new modes of thought (whether harmful or helpful) to enter the American consciousness and challenge their traditional ideas. This may result in a more tolerant people that reserves judgment and allows people to argue their case in an open forum. Of course, people will have the freedom to agree or differ with those argument. These "objectionable opinions," in recent years, run the gamut from abortion to homosexual marriage. The ability to freely express different opinions on such topics allow the country as a whole to exchange ideas and make their own analyses.

Indeed, the Constitution places limits on the freedom of speech. These prohibitions include, among others, obscenity, sedition, fighting words and speech designed to incite an immediate breach of speech. The limited prohibitions on speech are mainly designed to maintain order in society and to protect the vulnerable members of society, including children and minorities. Granted, any act or opinion deemed objectionable by the majority of people may be argued successfully as part of the limited prohibitions on speech. That is why courts should be careful in penalizing people under these exceptions in order to preserve the integrity of our democracy. Charging people under the exceptions on a more frequent basis would lead our country to a path that stifles people from expressing their true opinions. This can be seen in countries, such as Iran and China, where political activists are thrown in prison or coerced to make false confessions on a regular basis.


The freedom of speech is one of the most important elements of a democracy. It allows people to openly disagree with government leaders and their actions. It, furthermore, allows people to debate in a public forum about controversial topics. Allowing the free exchange of information among people often leads to intelligent analyses about issues and perhaps better outcomes. Granted, harmful ideas may also enter the public consciousness. However, the ability for people to carry their own opinions and make individual analyses oftentimes will defeat those harmful ideas. Therefore, it is generally better to err on the side of allowing certain speech over suppressing it.