Introduction
Freedom of speech is essential to American culture. It seems like a beneficial attribute of everyday life as it allows people to express their ideas freely, but sometimes it has a negative influence and violates the rights of social minorities. Consequently, some restrictions have to be introduced to avoid conflicts in society. The primary goal of this essay is to compare and contrast the freedom of speech in the United States of America to the laws of other countries such as Finland, Germany, Canada, and other countries, which also have free speech laws. Moreover, it discusses its necessity for restriction and impact of this freedom on different social groups, as it is vital to determine whether it is harmful to the society or not. Furthermore, the right to protest as freedom of speech specialty is evaluated. In the end, possible suggestions for restrictions are proposed.
Free Speech in the USA in Contrast to other countries
A comparison of the American freedom law with the legislation of the other countries has to be made to determine the necessity for improvement. Nonetheless, a few words have to be mentioned about the American specifics regarding free speech. Firstly, the First Amendment provides a right to express ideas freely in all forms (Machan 92). This matter makes the United States of America exceptional in comparison to other countries.
Finland is a European Union country, which has extensive rights regarding the matter of freedom of speech. According to the Finnish constitution, Finland is a democratic country, and freedom of expression is granted to anyone without any specifications (Ministry of Justice, Finland 3). Another similarity between American and Finnish policy is the fact that citizens of both countries are allowed to assembly (Ministry of Justice, Finland 3). It seems that the United States of America and Finland are highly democratic societies, and it is a primary reason for many similarities in freedom of speech legislation. However, it could not be said that the American government does not apply censorship, as it might seem that some of the topics are under governmental control (Machan 95). In this case, Finland provides more freedom of expression and speech.
Another country was chosen for comparison with the United States of America in Germany. In Germany, freedom of speech is an essential right for expression (Henry 123). Nonetheless, it has to be consistent with the law and do not violate the rights of the other individuals (Henry 123). As for America, the freedom of speech has a deep historical origin, and the First Amendment is discovered as a primary source of this right (Amar 514). It could be said that the German and American law regarding the freedom of speech matter has a lot of similarities, as both of them have some limitations.
It has to be mentioned that Canada also supports the freedom of expression, and comparison between the United States of America and Canada will help emphasize differences and similarities regarding this matter. It could be said that both countries try to “suppress ‘the hate speech,’” as it violates human rights and offends the ethnic origin of the individuals (Newman 370). It could be said that the problem of the definition of hate speech takes place in both countries. The pure definition is required, as it is essential to provide equal rights to the different members of society.
In conclusion, it has to be mentioned that other countries also emphasize freedom of speech. However, it is more limited to censored. Based on the comparison, it could be said that Finland is the most democratic country, as it has only a limited number of restrictions regarding freedom of speech. This extended freedom is questionable, as the expressions might promote racism. Other countries implement limitations to avoid intolerance and violations of the rights of the individuals.
Influence of Freedom of Speech on Different Social Groups in the USA
Initially, freedom of expression had a positive intention. However, even though the American legislation applies restrictions, it is impossible to have full control over the speech of each person individually. Misunderstandings and offensive expressions often take place and have an adverse impact on various social groups.
Despite being essentiality of the American culture, the freedom of speech frames and puts the individuals in the hierarchy depending on different characteristics and their correlation with the freedom of expression (Downs and Cowan 1353). This fact creates inequality in American society and violates the freedoms and rights of some individuals, such as sexual and ethnic minorities. It could be said that this fact questions the ability of the American government to provide equal opportunities to all persons.
It could be said that violating one’s rights was understood as a primary intention of the freedom of speech, as people have a tendency to express their feeling and emotion regarding the detestable political, economic, and social matters (Shackel 316). This misunderstanding occurred due to continuous offensive expressions about ethnic and sexual minorities. The positive intentions of freedom of speech were destroyed by the deliberate actions of the other members of society. It will take some time to build an image of the necessity of free expression in American society.
Despite the misunderstanding and misconceptions of the freedom of speech, it had a positive influence on historical movements and the legalization of the rights of minorities (Cowan et al. 249). It helped people to express their feelings regarding their sexuality or ethnicity. It was a primary reason for the modern equality and ability to express freely sexual orientation in American society.
The Right to Protest as a Special Right
The right to protest has to be discussed precisely, as, according to international law, every person has a right to protest (Katuoka and Giedraityte par. 1). Moreover, it has to be implemented peacefully, as a nonviolent dialog allows having a sufficient conversation with the governmental authorities (Katuoka and Giedraityte par. 2). It is a necessary instrument for expressing emotions and ideas regarding social, political, and economic issues by the ordinary members of society.
However, it has to be mentioned that it is always problematic for the government to have control over participants in the protests, as their actions are unpredictable. This matter questions the authorities’ ability to provide a sufficient level of safety during these activities. It is a primary reason for restricting these activities, as a lack of control might be a cause of deaths and injuries.
In the end, it seems that the right to protest is an essential communication instrument. It allows having a conversation with the government. Nonetheless, the peaceful protest might rapidly change into illegal and violent actions. It is clear that restrictions have to be proposed, for example, establishing a quota of participants, which will limit the number of participants. However, the riots regarding this proposal might occur, as it might seem that it violates the human’s freedom of speech.
The necessity for Restriction of Freedom of Speech in the USA
Based on the information and examples provided in the previous sections, it could be said that restricting the freedom of speech is a necessity in the United States of America. A primary reason for that is the fact that this phenomenon is vehemently misunderstood in American society and observed from a negative perspective. Another cause of limitation is the fact that freedom of speech has a tendency to violate human rights, as no strict definition of hate speech is provided in the United States of America. Additionally, despite being a driver for the formation of the minorities’ recognition, it still has a negative impact on the tolerance of ethnic and sexual minorities.
All these factors contribute to the development of the restrictions and limitations of freedom of speech. A lack of control of this phenomenon questions whether complete democracy is a suitable regime to provide equal rights to the individuals. It seems that people have a tendency to offend others and create hierarchies in society, even if all of them have equal rights.
Possible Suggestions for the Improvement
It is clear that some improvements have to introduced, as sometimes this freedom violates the right of the other people. Firstly, some actions have to be done regarding the topic of sexual and ethnic minorities. Even though the United States of America is a highly international and tolerant country, this problem still occurs. These issues can be discussed publically. However, no personal accusations regarding race or sexual orientation have to be expressed, as it adversely affects the feelings and attitudes of cultural and sexual minorities.
Furthermore, a precise definition of hate speech has to be established. A lack of definition creates misunderstanding among governmental authorities and other members of the society, as it is not clear when the application of this term is relevant. Defining the matter will contribute to establishing correct laws regarding the freedom of speech.
Stricter fines can be applied to solve the racial problem and improve a level of tolerance. It will contribute to maintaining the order in society, as people would be punished for their offensive expressions. Furthermore, it could be said that this matter will help reduce the level of racism and be a primary reason for the enhancement of equality in American society.
Moreover, the control of the press also has to be introduced, as publications are also a part of the freedom of speech. Stricter censorship has to be implemented to avoid pornography, intolerance, and racism in books and newspapers. This act will contribute to the enhancement of equality and emphasis on the importance of tolerance.
The right to protest also has to be restricted as a peaceful protest quickly turns into a violent act. It is impossible to control the crowd and predict its possible actions. In this case, negotiations might be a suitable solution to the problem. Video conferences became an important part of everyday life with the development of technology. Conducting these activities online will encourage citizens to participate, express their ideas, and communicate directly with the governmental authorities and other leaders. Using this approach will help establish contact with the population and avoid possible serious injuries and emergencies, which might occur during the protest due to the lack of obedience.
It could be said that all of the restrictions will help improve the current situation in the country and decrease the level of intolerance and racism. In this case, fines are the most reasonable punishments, as their assistance help reach equality and order in society. Additionally, precise definitions of all terms have to be provided to avoid possible misinterpretations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it could be said that freedom of speech is beneficial for society, as the population of the country has to have an ability to express its feeling, emotions, ideas, and opinion about various political, social, and economic issues. However, some restrictions have to be introduced, as sometimes the feelings and rights of ethnic and sexual minorities are violated. Other citizens have a tendency to express their attitudes regarding this matter. It could be suggested that topics regarding these social issues will be restricted to avoid conflicts between different social groups. Possible fines, definitions, and limitations have to be described in detail. The right to protest has to be restricted, as it quickly turns into disobedient actions and puts public safety in danger. Another form of expression of frustrations and negative emotions, such as negotiation, has to be introduced. This work will contribute to solving problems quickly without facing a massive adverse emotional arousal and avoid high percentages of injuries during the protests.
Works Cited
Amar, Akhil. “How America’s Constitution Affirmed Freedom Of Speech Even Before The First Amendment.” Capital University Law Review 38.3 (2010): 503-515. Legal Source. Web.
Cowan, Gloria, Miriam Resendez, Elizabeth Marshal, and Ryan Quist. “Hate Speech and Constitutional Protection: Priming Values of Equality and Freedom.” Journal of Social Issues 58.2 (2002): 247-263. Academic Search Complete. Web.
Downs, Daniel, and Gloria Cowan. “Predicting the Importance of Freedom of Speech and the Perceived Harm of Hate Speech.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42.6 (2012): 1353-1375. SocINDEX. Web.
Henry, Chris. “Wider Vision: Hate Speech Law, Public Opinion and Homosexual Rights in Germany and the United States.” Connecticut Journal of International Law 30 (2014): 123-142. HeinOnline.
Katuoka, Saulius, and Ruta Giedraityte. “The Right to Protest as a Particular Form of Exercise of Freedom to Assembly.” Jurisprudencija 21.2 (2014): n.pag. ProQuest.
Machan, Tibor. “The Right to Freedom of Speech, Worship, and Private Property.” Geopolitics, History and International Relations 2.2 (2010): 91-99. ProQuest.
Ministry of Justice, Finland. The Constitution of Finland. Helsinki: Finnish Lawyers Publishing Company, 2012. Print.
Shackel, Nicholas. “The Fragility of Freedom of Speech.” Journal of Medical Ethics 39.5 (2013): 316. MEDLINE Complete. Web.