No Restrictions On The First Amendment Essay

The First Amendment is the cornerstone of American democracy and the primary protector of the freedoms Americans enjoy. While some might argue that there should be no restrictions on the First Amendment, the First Amendment should be restricted in order to promote public safety and ensure the smooth functioning of society, and those limitations should be narrowly crafted and explicitly defined by the Supreme Court.
A person has the right to voice his or her opinion on a matter, regardless of what another person thinks about that opinion. This idea should be protected under the First Amendment unless a person’s opinion expressed through speech incites violence or disrupts the flow of society. For example, provoking another person to act in a violent way by speaking racial or ethnic slurs directly to them is not protected speech as this kind of speech could potentially endanger others. Another example of harmful speech with should not be protected is when a person yells “Bomb!” in a crowded airport, inducing pandamonium and causing the entire airport to shut
These arguments are extremely valid; however, they do not apply to the restrictions that have been outlined in this essay. Any restrictions to the First Amendment should apply only to thoughts or speech that expressed a certain way incite violence or disrupt the flow of society. Under the restrictions proposed above a person would be able to think what they wish. Intellectuals often use the freedom of speech to encourage free, open-minded discourse with the goal of human advancement. Thus, an intellectual would likely not express thoughts or actions that contradicted the limitations proposed as the limitations would restrict actions that inhibit progress not promote