Freedom of speech should include acts or opinions that may be objectionable to the majority of people.

Freedom of speech should include acts or opinions that may be objectionable to the majority of people.

1020 – 1050

Freedom of speech is an important part of the US democratic system that allows people to express their thoughts or concerns that matter most without government reprisal. Compared to other countries that have totalitarian governments and restrict free speech, the United States is unique in that it prohibits imprisonment of political critics and people who disagree with the government’s intentions. The freedom of speech is not limited to verbal but to non-verbal and  symbolic speech such as music, pornography, art and other forms. Despite these freedoms of speech, there are certain situations that need restrictions and other times that do not, to kep society safe.

First consider, situation when freedom of speech should include objectionable acts or opinions that should be included in free speech as long as it does not harm anyone. In many cases, politicians and citizens tend to take controversial issues and blow them out of proportion because most of the time these issues do not harm the safety or interests of the common man in daily life. For example, the issues of gay marriage, and stem cells may cause controversy and disagreement but should still be considered free speech. Another example, is stem cell research and its implications. Although many  religious groups disagree on stem cell usage to find cures for disease there are some who support the science. In 2004, the Bush Administration did not further funding for the stem cell research initiative because he viewed it as unethical for extracting cells from embryos at the cost of human life. However in 2008, an alternative source, amniotic fluid, was used to derive stem cells. This reduced the controversy of killing life. Lastly, gay marriage has been a hot topic because many religious groups view it as unethical and challenged the teachings of the Bible. However, some states such as California legalized it and others opposed based on beliefs. So it is evident that there are both sides to the story on free speech, where some will agree and disagree but in the end, free speech should be allowed on controversial issues because no harm is being done to the public directly.

On the other hand, freedom of speech should not include  all objectionable acts or opinions that are harmful. For instance, since the Supreme court ruling on Roe Vs Wade, that legalized abortion many people have tried to reverse the law because of the ethical concerns behind abortion. Many people argue that abortion is unethical to kill an embryo or fetus but depending on the situation it is necessary. Thus not including abortions with consent under free speech is acceptable. However, in cases of forced pregnancy such as rape, the woman should be given a chance for abortion because she had no prior consent for having children. Another example is racial discrimination and prejudice through the use of free speech. It is unethical to use free speech against a person because it will severely demoralize them as well as the society as a whole. For example, in the aftermath of Germany falling to Allied Powers in World War 1, the Germans had to pay high reparation for their loss resulting in economic problems. However, under Hitler’s leadership he brought the country back on its feet but at the expense of harming innocent Jews and other groups that were discriminated under his Nazi regime. As a result, in today’s modern society many companies and institutions have adopted anti-discrimiantory policies to prevent freedom of speech to harm other races and  religious groups. Therefore, freedom of speech should not protect rights that will harm others.

All in all freedom of speech should include objectionable acts or thoughts based on the circumstances. If an objectionable act is not harmful to human life or morale, such as gay marriage or stem cells then freedom of speech should protect these rights. These acts don’t harm anyone to prevent the pulse of living. In contrast, objectionable acts such as racial discrimination,  prejudice, abortion with consent, should not be allowed because it will demoralize society and disturb the process of peaceful living.