Pro Outline

Finlay
Damn the United States! I wish I may never hear of the United States
again. Those were the infamous words of Philip Nolan, the man without a
country. That begs the question of whether there should be limits to free
speech, I say yes.
Lets take a historical look at the time when our country was being
formed, when the colonists fought a revolution for their independence. A
man named Benedict Arnold was a dedicated soldier and a respected leader
fighting on the side of the colonists. In 1780, he betrayed the colonists by
leaking information to the British, and joined the redcoats, becoming one of
the most famous traitors in U.S. history. His choice; his right to speak freely.
Free speech, yes or no? What do you think?
According to our U.S. Constitution, Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances. The meaning of these words have been debated
since they were first but on paper. We cannot ask what did you mean or
inquire does this apply to everyone in all situations. The best we can do is
to look to the legal experts for guidance and understanding. As citizens of
the United States, we have free speech and the 1st Amendment guarantees
that our free speech will continue. It is considered our inalienable right
which, according to dictionary.com, means a right according to natural law,
a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred.
Contrary to what many people believe, this does not mean there arent any
restrictions. Without limitations on free speech, people such as Philip Nolan
and Benedict Arnold can stir up trouble for themselves and for others.
Ever since Benedict Arnolds treason, the restrictions on free speech
have been elevated especially during wartime. Our government has

protected the rights of its citizens, military included, to speak out and speak
freely about the government. However, in a document written by the
University of Chicago Law School we learn that during the civil war,
Abraham Lincoln strictly enforced restrictions on free speech, arresting
thousands of people. Lincoln stated, and I quote all persons guilty of any
disloyal practice...shall be subject to martial law. This disloyal practice
refers to speaking out against the government. Policies such as the ones
used by Lincoln may seem strict, but they are necessary to ensure that
leaked information and other forms of sabotage are kept to a minimum.
Limits on free speech were practiced during World War 1. Many citizens
were not in favor of the United States involvement in the war and actively
spoke out against it. President Woodrow Wilson called for federal legislation
against disloyal expression and further stated that disloyalty was no a
subject on which there was room for debate. Strong statements like that
support the policy calling for limits on free speak. Even stronger was the
Espionage Act of 1917 enacted by Congress to criminalized cause or
attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny,
A recent terrorist attack targeted the French magazine Charlie Hebdo.
The magazine features satirical mockery directed at other religions and their
gods. The attacks are a classic example of what can happen if we are
irresponsible about what we say. As thinking individuals, we understand
satire and respect and encourage open dialog. However there must be a fine
line between acceptable humor and disrespectful commentary. At the core
of this respect is our identity, or our ethnicity and our religion, our
relationship with God. This is why limits are necessary. When individuals
cross that fine line, chaos may result. But remember we can still exercise
free speech. We simply need to be wiser with our words.

Dean
Weve spoken about the 1st Amendment. This amendment also guards
our right to practice our religion. We are therefore allowed to follow any
religion we desire. We also have the right to criticize other religions.

According to Britannica, Speech may not be specifically punished because it

is . . . hostile to some religion. For instance, films such as The DaVinci Code
are extremely offensive to us Catholics, but they are legal because they do
not include any threats or fighting words. In the film, outrageous ideas were
expressed, such as: Jesus is not God, he was only a man; Jesus got Mary
Magdalene pregnant, and the two had a daughter; That daughter gave rise
to a prominent family line that is still present in Europe today; The Catholic
Church is willing to and often has killed the descendents of Christ to keep his
blood line from growing. This movie and others like it hide under the
umbrella of free speech to spread their anti-Catholic propaganda. This movie
and others like it are offensive, slanderous, and insulting to me and every
other Christians. Should movie makers be applauded for their fictional,
hurtful portrayal of my God and attack on my religion or should they have
free reign to create what they will?
Throughout the ages, the high court has empowered the government
to impose limitations on free speech. Some areas receive little to no
protection under the 1st Amendment. These areas include phornography,
child phornography, threats (to imminent violence) and fighting words (that
may lead to violence).
Britannica said, Racist threats are unprotected by the First
Amendment alongside other threats, and personally addressed racist
insults might be punishable alongside other fighting words. Speech
becomes illegal when others are harmed, threatened, or put in danger. This
means that, just like religiously offensive speech, racist statements are legal,
as long as they cannot cause harm. How do we know when harm is imminent
based on hate speech. Does hate speech lead to hate crimes. Now that thin
line has once again been crossed.
The restrictions on free speech are enforced in school, as well. Take the
Morse versus Frederick case, from 2007. While the runners were passing
through Alaska during the Olympic Torch Relay for the Salt Lake City games,
a high school student named Joseph Frederick held up a banner promoting

drugs. He was suspended, and sued his school and his principal, Deborah
Morse for denying him his First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled
that the school was not going against the Constitution, because it had the
right to provide a safe environment for its students.
usatoday.com offeres a laundry list of items not protected under the
1st Amendment. Freedom of speech does not extend to ( quote)
1 - to incite actions that would harm others-shouting fire in a crowded
theater
2 - to make or distribute obscene material
3 - to burn draft cards as an anti-war protest
...to name a few.

Jeau
The only type of speech that does not have First Amendment
protection, even if it does not harm others, is obscenity. Despite its explicit
content and the harm that it inflicts on peoples minds, most forms of
pornography are protected by the First Amendment. Those certain forms are
not hardcore enough to be considered obscene, and are, therefore, not
considered illegal. Child pornography, however, is illegal in all aspects, and
all other types of pornography should be made illegal as well.
The government, of course, has rights as well. Most of you know about
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 2,997 people died that day. To
help prevent such deadly terrorism from repeating itself, the Patriot Act was
passed. The act allows the government to use surveillance to monitor
people, and to identify possible criminals. Some people call it an invasion of
our privacy, but surveillance is necessary to help stop organized crime and
terrorism. People complained that their right of free speech was in danger
because they felt as if the government not only monitors what its citizens are
saying, it prosecutes those who they feel pose a threat.

During World War 2 our government was concerned about its military
security. Our military leaders knew that one careless statement at the wrong
time heard by the wrong person would have devastating effects on our
nation and could possibly turn the tide of the war. A campaign was launched
nation-wide to impress upon all citizens that importance of limiting our free
speech. The phrase Loose Lips Sink Ships was coined and spread eagerly
throughout the nation. Simply put, it means unguarded talk might give
useful information to the enemy.
We are the new generation of Americans. We understand our
inalienable right to free speech and defend it vigorously. We also see a world
that has changed in ways that our Founding Fathers could have never
imagined. We must make sure that policies such as free speech do not get
out of hand and are in line with life as we live it today. . We are in charge of
our future and the future of others. It is up to us, as future voters, to ensure
that our country remains just and well-balanced.