Exceptions to Freedom of Speech

With the exceptions to the freedom of speech, national stability can be maintained, as individuals are held responsible for some kinds of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. Secondly, the restrictions are largely based on the impact that a speech has which ensures that individuals do not injure the character or reputations of others maliciously. Additionally, individuals cannot take advantage of the Amendment to make defamatory statements in the form of slander or libel. Introduction The First Amendment provides for the freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. It is however imperative that these freedoms be limited so that they don’t cause harm to others. With this restriction, individuals’ freedom of speech is limited and this ensures that the content of their speech is not obscene in the eyes of the legal criteria of obscenity test set in the aforementioned case.

Defamatory statements, expression or “fighting words” have an implication of inflicting injury on individuals on which these statements are directed. On this ground, the indispensability of limitation on the freedom of speech is understood. These restrictions are purely aimed at ensuring that individuals don’t misuse the freedom of speech to attack or injure the reputations of others through libel or slander (Barron 67). While slander is oral or spoken defamatory statements, libel is printed defamation and is actionable per se. Making an agreement to commit a criminal activity is construes to be a crime by itself. Written or oral expression that has an effect of inciting the people is contained through limitations. There are some forms of oral or written expression that causes incitement usually on the basis of ethnic extractions, race, gender, and religion.

Members of a given division are incited against the other groups which situation causes a breach of peace. Incitement may cause wars between communities, different religious groups, or people of different colors. However, following the decision in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy vs. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, commercials have some limited protection in the First Amendment. Only the truthful and honest commercials are considered “protected speech. ” Other commercials which are misleading are regarded as “non-speech” and hence punishable (Meikle 260). This limitation is important as it ensures the protection of consumers who may be misled by such adverts. ” This also, explains why, despite the freedom of speech and of the press, the federal law continues to effect ban of indecent broadcasts between 6.

am and 10. pm. The freedom of speech of children is limited in schools (Morone 93). This is because schools are perceived as “parents” to the children and as such, they need be guided appropriately into men and women of integrity and who are also responsible. The interest of substantial weight includes the protection of listeners and children from offensive ideas and expression (Morone 94). For example, some programs are limited to broadcasting only at night to ensure that their audience is large majority people as children are deemed to be already asleep. There is a restriction to the freedom of speech, whose positivity is grounded in the protection of the viewers and listeners. Individuals who violate this restriction must be held responsible for it.

In ensuring the secrecy of the United State Military, the federal government controls the military and exercises its broad powers in restricting the speech that is made by military officers. This is reasonable in the process of correcting the inmates and instilling in them the discipline of conformity with the established laws of the land the violation of which they are convicted of. This extends to the pretrial detainees in addition to convicts who are on parole. A prison, however, is required to provide alternative means of exercising the freedom (Stone et al. Equally, in the case of immigrants, a speech that could have otherwise been protected when said by a citizen maybe unprotected. An immigrant may be barred from making a speech despite the fact that such a speech is given by a citizen, would be protected.

For this reason, a complex system is established by the Supreme Court of the Land which provides a standard of determination of which types of false statements are not protected where false statement implies making a false statement of fact on purpose and also implicit statements of fact (Richards 75). Individuals must take the onus of their speech if the said speech falls into the category of the unprotected speech under the First Amendment. The restrictions of the freedom of speech are based on its impact on communication. Hate speech, for example, has an effect of polarizing people, causing bad blood between groups of people and eventually wars and animosity. The relevance of these restrictions is therefore grounded on the ability of these restrictions to contain such speech of hate and animosity.

Freedom of speech should be restricted and limited when national security, for example, is under threat. According to the opposition, limitations aren’t necessary as they go against the entire idea of free speech which is provided in the First Amendment. The opponents contend that the government has no right to take control of whatever they do or say on the internet as the internet is not a government entity. They, therefore, fault the government for monitoring their doings on the internet (Redish, 429). Additionally, they contend that not a single individual should be afraid of having their opinion misinterpreted as a threat. Edwin. "Scope of the First Amendment freedom of speech. " Ucla L. Rev. Barron, Jerome. By the people: Debating American government.