First Amendment Limitations
Why is it necessary for the government to put limitations on individual rights? Do you think these limitations are required, or do you believe that the freedoms outlined in the First Amendment should be absolute? Please explain your response in full detail.
54 comments:
It is necessary to put limitations on certain rights because if those rights were not restricted in any way, then anyone could say or do anything they wanted and get away with it. I think these limitations on individual rights are required because if a person who said or did something, put other people in danger (knowing that they were doing this) then the freedoms should defintely have some sort of limitation on them. Especially freedom of speech. Yelling "bomb" on a crowded plane is NOT freedom of speech. Sure, it's saying what you want, but chances are that people will panic and cause a stampede, which could result in others getting harmed. The government does have the right to restrict where and when it is appropriate to say something like that. The freedoms in the First Amendment should not be absolute because then the US would practically be lawless and would have absolutely no control over its people. Since freedom of religion is also incorporated in the First Ammendment, then someone could create a religion involving human sacfrifice, but if they were charged with murder, then they could just plead Freedom of Religion. This is why I believe that limitations on the First Ammendment are necessary.
it is necessary to put limitations on our 1st amendment rights because if they were not restricted anyone could do or say anything they wanted even if it put people in danger. If someone decided to burn an american flag infront of a bunch of american war veterans this would anger them and probably cause a fight which would out people in a violant situation. These are the reasons why there should be limitations on our first amendment rights.
I absolutely believe it is necessary putting limitations on our rights because if we don't, people will get away with things that are wrong and illegal. I believe this because we can easily take advantage of a right that isn't clearly stated to what our limits are. The government has the right to do this because people would be able to express their opinions in the wrong place or time that may put everyone in a dangerous situation. A perfect example of this would be saying bomb in a crowded airport, it would put people in a panic and somebody could get hurt. Although the government doesn't want you to say it at that time, it doesn't mean you can never say it, just not in a situation like this. I absolutely think these limitations are required because if they weren't, then again we could put people in dangerous situations. I do not believe that the freedoms outlined in the First Amendment should be absolute because that would give us the freedom to express our feeling in any time or place which could end in a disaster. I absolutely think putting limits on our First Amendment is necessary to a safe and secure life style.
It is necessary for the government to put limits on individual rights because, many people would find loop holes, meaning they would find ways to be able to do what ever they want. i think they should be able to limit because it could endanger other peoples life, for example going to a movie theater and yell Fire, that could endanger other lives. If we didn't have limits, we wouldn't have rules, people would just do what ever they want.
It is necessary for the government to put limitations on these individual rights because without limitations anybody could say or do anything they wanted. For example, if someone shouted the word "Bomb" in a public place, like a hospital, school, or even an elevator it would case havoc. Everyone would be running so fast out of there someone could fall and get hurt. The main point is that shouting a dangerous word that is not true in a public place would cause terror everywhere, so this is not freedom of speech. In the end, the government has legal authority to punish someone who said that because freedom of speech is not absolute.
I believe that it is necessary for the United States government to place limitations on individual rights. These limitations are absolutely required because if the freedoms outlined in the First Amendment were absolute there would be no order in towns and cities. I also believe that it should be clear where each citizen's rights end. If there were no limitations to the First Amendment, citizens would be able to shout "Bomb" on a crowded airplane or yell "Fire" in a movie theater which could lead to injury and disaster. As a result, limitations can help maintain peace and reduce havoc.
It is necessary for the government to put limitations on individual rights because if not the American people could take action and say whatever they want to say. For example, prior to nine-eleven, saying "Bomb" at a public airport would not be such a big deal. However, after nine-eleven occurred,saying "Bomb" at a public airport would cause stress and people would start to get worried. Therefore, the government had to put restrictions on the First Amendment so they are required. In conclusion, the government had to put limitations on individual rights which makes perfect sense.
It is very important for the Government to put limitations on American rights because if not, then people would take advantage of the rights. For example, if you say "fire" in a crowded movie theater would be horrible, but it would have not been as big of a deal if there were not limitations. Even though we are entitled to freedom of speech, it is very smart for the government to put limitations. The government has legal authority to put limitations on the First Amendment to keep the people in America safe.
I feel that it was necessary for the Government to put limitations on individual rights. If there weren't limitations, there would be chaos all over the country. If someone were to scream bomb at an airport, nobody would know if the person was lying. People would be aloud to say anything they wanted wherever and whenever. I absolutly feel that these limitations are required.
It is necessary to put limitations on the First Amendment becuase if we dont, people could do things that danger others. Freedom of Speech can only be procected if danger is not intended. I absolutely think that limitations on our First Amendment is required because it is not fair to put somebody in danger intentionally by something you said. For example, yelling "fire" in a crowed movie theatre is not protected by the First Amendment becuase when you say that, you know people will get up to leave panicing. The government does not restrict the word you said, but when and where you said it. If the First Amendment was absolute, our country would be chaotic not having any control over what people are saying and doing. This is why i absolutely agree with having limitations on the First Amendment.
It is necessary to put limitations on rights, because many people would abuse those rights to their full advantage. In order to have rights that people will obey, you must have limitations, without limitations, people could do what ever they wanted to do. It would endanger peoples lives such as yelling "Fire" in a movie theater, could endanger lives because people would be more concerned about saving themselves, than worrying about other people. Even though it is a form of Freedom of speech, you still don't reserve the right to be able to do that action. Our country would be very disorganized if we didn't have limitations, people would go crazy, and that could endanger many people, and cause civil wars, and protest.
I believe certain rights should be limited because, if some rights weren't limited people could do whatever they wanted and it would be ok. These limitations are definitely required. For example, if you said "bomb" in an airport today, their would be a lot of panic. But if you said it before nine-eleven it would not be as much of a stress. By saying this, if the Government did not put restrictions on certain laws, saying "bomb" in an airport would be okay. But since you saying it, and their is no bomb, you would get in a lot of trouble. Which to me makes sense because saying something like "bomb" or "fire" in an airport or public place is not okay unless it is serious.
The goverment should limit certain rights to keep order in an area. It is necessary to limit people's rights because if you don't people's lives would be in danger. Like we discussed in class, if someone yelled fire in a movie theater people would panic and trample each other, which would cause unnecessary injuries, and if we didn't have these laws that person would have gotten away unscathed, which is unfair to the victims. Also without laws people could not function as a society.
The government must put limitations on the first amendment to keep it form being misinterpreted. People all have different opinions and words are interpreted differently by everyone. The government must limit the first amendment because of the danger that comes with words. Yelling "bomb" in a airport or "fire" in a crowded movie theater must be illegal, because it could harm others. Freedom of speech cannot be protected if danger is intended. By yelling "bomb" in a airport, you create a state of panic, which can result in a state of danger.
It is necessary for the Government to put limitations on certain rights because there are people in this country who are looking to be troublesome. People will attempt things that are not "against the law" per say however, they are not appropriate nor safe for society. If these laws that are in place were to be absolute, and no limitations were put on these laws, people would manage to alter the exact words of the law to make whatever it is they are doing, seem legal. These limitations however, are in place. This is very necessary to our current community because it keeps order.
I think the government is required to put limitations on the first amendment. It cannot be an absolute freedom. Limitations are needed in case a situation that could be dangerous arises that the first amendment protects. If the first amendment protects it, then more people can repeat it, putting even more people in danger. For instance, yelling "bomb" in an airport would cause mass panic and chaos. But not everything should be limited. The first amendment was created so that American citizens have the freedom to express what they believe in, so the government cannot limit our rights to belief.
It is necessary for the government to put limitations on individual rights because they are needed to prevent dangerous situations. I believe these limitations are required because otherwise people could cause harm to others. These limitations are needed because harmful situations could be caused in public areas. Society's First Amendment rights are not taken away, they just have restrictions for when, how, and where you may express these rights. They are not limiting your opinions, thoughts, or ideas therefore, the limitations the government has placed on society's rights are okay and necessary to have.
I think it is necessary to put limitations on the first amendment because many people would take what was said in the first amendment and misinterpret it and do crazy and put people in danger. The government was very smart by putting limits on the first amendment, if they didn't our country would most likely be destroyed by now. Many people would of probably taken what was said in the first amendment and put their own words on it and done what they would of wanted. The government however can not stop what words come out of your mouth but the time and place in when you say it. Overall i feel that the government was required to put these limits on the first amendment.
Freedom of speech is a right that we American's are lucky to enjoy. The Supreme Court has decided that there are a few reasons, such as personal safety and national security, that override our freedom of speech. I agree with the limitations that are put on speech that could create a dangerous situation, violence, obscenity, libel and slander, however, I do not agree with the government trying to put limitations on the material on the internet. In 1996, the US Government tried to regulate material on the internet in order to protect kids with the Communications Decency Act. I think that regulating the internet is a direct violation of free speech and expression because the government would be controlling what we can read and view. In 1997, the Supreme Court partially overturned the law, in Reno vs. ACLU, because the CDA would "reduce the speech available to adults on the medium". I agree with that decision and think that parental control of the material that kids can view and access on the internet, rather than government regulation, is a better way to protect kids and it will not violate our first amendment rights.
I believe that it is necessary to put limitations on the first amendment. I believe this because in some cases if people take advantage of it it can create a dangerous situation. Such as someone yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, or someone yelling bomb at an airport, or while on a pane. These are some limitations required to keep u safe form dangerous situations. However there are other limitations o don;t believe are necessary are that some thing are okay in certain places but not in others. An example of this is if you are standing on your awn you are allowed to burin and American flag but if you were at a grave yard with a bunch of army veterans you may be arrested. Another example is if your are at public school there is no limitation on your freedom of speech, but at private school they have the ability to control whatever you say. This is why i think that some limitations on the first amendment are necessary but some aren't necessary.
I think that it is necessary for the Government to put limitations on individual rights because, using an example, many people would take freedom of speech and use i against other people by saying unrightfully things and making stupid choices. I also think that putting restrictions on individual rights is very smart because many people could mis-interprit what is written in the Constitution and danger others. This is why the U.S. government puts restrictions on individual rights in order to keep others from being harmed and put in danger by those using their own rights against others.
It is necessary to put limitations on individual rights because of the possibility of a person taking their rights to the extreme. For example, you can't endanger someone by shouting something that would cause a situation. This is a good restriction because you can still say fire but you can't yell it in a sticky situation. The government did avery good job in giving people power but not giving them full control. If free speech was absolute everything would fall apart. There would be no rule or control.
It is a privilege to have freedom of speech. Unlike other countries in the United States of America you can say what you believe. However, some people abuse this privilege therefore we need to have limitations on it. These limitations are required because somebody could yell "bomb" on a crowded airplane or "fire" in a packed movie theater and cause a lot of chaos and confusion. Somebody could end up being harmed because of what somebody said. Yes, you can say what you want but if you know it will cause violence or harm then it is not okay. It all depends when and where you say it. I think we should not abuse our freedoms but embrace them and use our words the right way. That's why we need limitations on our individual rights.
I think it is necessary to put limitations on individual rights. If we didn't have limitations then people could get away with things that aren't right. If we didn't have limitations on free speech then a person could say anything, anywhere and cause harm to innocent American citizens. An example of this would be yellow fire at a movie theater and having a person trampled and be seriously injured. I think putting limitations on these rights helps keep people safe and happy.
I think it is necessary to put limitations on individual rights. If we didn't have limitations then people could get away with things that aren't right. If we didn't have limitations on free speech then a person could say anything, anywhere and cause harm to innocent American citizens. An example of this would be yellow fire at a movie theater and having a person trampled and be seriously injured. I think putting limitations on these rights helps keep people safe and happy.
I believe that it is 100% necessary for the government to put limitations on individual rights. If the government were to not have limitations, americans could cause hazardous situation and not get penalized for it. For example, If a person yelled robbery in a crowed store it would cause problems because the people in the store will panic and people would get run over. Limitations really depend on the time, content, manner. If a person were to whisper robbery or joke about then there would have been no reactions to the response. If what it said causes a huge commotion and a false alarm then, a limitation should be required. I also think that limitation does not give a absolute value to the First Amendment but, if there were to not be any limitations then, Americans could cause plenty of problems.
It is necessary to put limitations on individual rights because if there were none people could take advantage of other people by harming them whether its somewhere public like a movie theater or an airport. The first amendment without limitations would be very unsafe for some people and would bring harm to many people. Yelling bomb at an airport and yelling fire at a movie theater would get you arrested and if there were no limitations for the public, people would run around and hurt others because the feel threatened.
It is necessary to put limitations on certain rights because is there were no limitations put fourth then there would be chaos. People would b able to yell "Fire" in a packed movie theatre and not get in trouble for it. People would also be able to yell"Bomb" in a crowed airport. Another example of a limitation put on the first amendment is not being able to burn the American flag. This was put because people get would get offended by the disrespect shown towards our nation. Overall these limitations were put fourth on the first amendmet to limit the amount of chaos and create a peaceful environment.
The government has done a good job protecting the first amendment because they have done what is needed in order to keep american citizens safe while still allowing our rights to not be greatly limited. What the government has done is, they have kept our rights and interests in mind while keeping us safe.
It is absolutely necessary to put limitations on first amendment rights. If there were not limitations on our first amendment rights there would be complete chaos and anyone would be able to do or say anything they want and not get a punishment. Someone can cause danger if they were to yell fire in a movie theater or bomb in an airplane. First amendment rights must not be absolute because then the government would not be in control and serious danger could be caused.
I believe that is is necessary to put limitations on specific rights that we Americans have the oppurtunity to recieve. I think this because if we could just go wherever we wanted and say harmful things to people, it could leave others in danger.
The rights in the First Amendment should be limited because if there were no limitations then it would be crazy. The government tries to gives us all the rights in the First Amendment but some things just can't happen. The limitations aren't meant to take rights away but are meant to keep things safe.
It is necessary for the government to put limitations on individual rights so that its citizens are protected. I definitely think that these limitations are required. Not abiding with the limitations of the first ammendment could put us in danger or in harms way. For example, yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre could cause a sudden rush to the exit that could potentially injure or kill someone as a result - something that could have been completely avoided simply without the use of the word "fire". Another free speech limitation, which could be also viewed as a limitation to freedom of the press, would be letting out government secrets that could potentially harm us (wikileaks). A limitation to freedom of the press would be publishing untrue information that could be harmful to one's reputation, specifically a "public figure". There are also bounderies to freedom of religion. Although one has the right to practice any religion of their choice, they can't practice it to the extent that it negatively interferes with the well being of others.
I believe limitations are required on The First Amendment for many reasons. Absolute freedom would endanger at an even greater level. Limitations are necessary to protect from danger. Limits on free speech are definitely needed. For instance, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected under the first amendment, for it would create panic and endanger lives. The same goes for yelling "bomb" in an airport, and saying "hijack" in a plane. Free speech is not the only freedom stated in this amendment. Limitations are also necessary on the rest of the freedoms, although the freedom of religion is tricky to limit. Human sacrifice is limited, for it is endangering, but I think other limits should not be put on it, unless it is for protection.
I think that it is necessary for the government to put limitations on certain rights. If nobody limited rights then everybody would be running around saying "fire" in a movie theater or "bomb" in an airport. Nobody knows if they are telling the truth or not. Right now, people have the right to say whatever they want because of free speech. But they are just abusing it. The Government should put a stop to this by putting limitations on free speech. For example they could say that you cannot say fire or bomb or any words that will cause trouble and panic. This will prevent chaos and hysteria.
It is necessary to limit freedoms if they can cause harm to others. It is also necessary to limit freedoms if they spread stories that aren't true. Without the limitations to certain freedoms people could practically get away with anything by exercising their rights. In some instances, people could even murder others, and say it is their right to free speech. Be that as it may, with these limitations, it is also necessary to protect the beliefs of citizens. We can limit the time and place one excersies a right if it can be harmful, but we cannot limit ones belief.
I think that it is necessary for the government to have limitations on the first Amendment for a lot of reasons. Having total freedom could be dangerous to many people and in many scenarios . Having limitations keep us from getting into a possible dangerous situation. Saying certain things in a public place could cause chaos. For example, yelling bomb in a crowded airport would cause panic. I think having limitations are not telling people that they can not say the words like bomb but that they can not say it in a place where it could cause possible chaos. I believe that having limitations helps protect America.
I think it is very necessary for the government to put limitations on individual rights. Without limitations, people would be able to say or do things that could potentially lead to harmful or dangerous situations. I do not think it should be an absolute freedom. Naturally, people will test their freedoms to the furthest extent, causing as much trouble and stretching the law as far as they are possibly "allowed" to. If the first amendment protected this, more and more people would cause trouble and create dangerous situations, because by law, they are allowed to. Limitations do not take away our first amendment rights, they just have restrictions as to how we express our rights, in a way that is safe for everyone.
I completely think it is necessary to put limitations on individual rights. This is because if limitations were not in place and people could say anything they wanted, everything would be more hectic. For example people could be hurt from people yelling fire in a crowded movie theater because of everyones panic. With these limitations you cant say things like that for the protection of others. Although some things you say may be frowned on by society, you can still say it. The government just limit where you can say certain things like in situations where it is possible for someone to get hurt.
I think the government was right to put limits on individual rights because certain restrictions are necessary to people's saftey. For example, you are not allowed to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. This is because yelling fire could cause a stampede, and is therefore an endangerment to life & saftey. Therefore, some limitations on freedom of speech are necessary to keep the people of the United States safe.
Limitations are necessary on the First Amendment. They are necessary because free speech can possibly cause dangerous situations. For example yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater would cause a stampede which might gets small child trampled. Or if you were to burn a flag in front of WWII veterans, knowing they would take offense to it, you could potentially cause a riot. These are some reasons why free speech needs to be restricted.
Limitations are very necessary in regards to individual rights, seeing as it is quite easy for people to comprehend rules in different ways. For example, the first amendment states that American citizens are granted the freedom of speech, and while the right itself is generally self explanatory, people might go so far as to interpret it as being able to say, or scream, legitimately anything they please without consequence. You can't just scream "bomb" on a plane, "fire" in a crowded location, or anything that puts others in danger or causes panic. It is necessary for people to understand that there are consequences for the words they choose to say. It is definitely necessary for individual rights to be restricted to some extent, if only to protect people from the potential enormity of mere words.
It think the government needs limitations because if we didn't people could cause a lot of caos and panic. If you could yell bomb where ever or fire or he has a gun then no one would actually know when the threat is real or some one is just messing around. So without these limitations we would have no way to control what happens around in our communities and in public areas.
I think there have to be limitations because some people can take rules in the wrong sense. Despite free speech it would cause lots of problems to say fire in a movie theater or bomb in an airport. Free speech is good as long as people don't abuse it like the examples we discussed in class.
It necessary to put limitations on individual rights because people can say or do anything they please. As a result there could be danger, an example of this is yelling fire in a movie theatre. Also, burning an American flag in front of war veterans can cause some trouble. Because of situations like these, it is necessary to put limitations on individual rights.
I believe that it is nessasary to our first amendment right because the world has changed since it was created and there has to be limitations like the examples you give in class, saying fire in a movie theatre.
I believe that it is nessasary to our first amendment right because the world has changed since it was created and there has to be limitations like the examples you give in class, saying fire in a movie theatre.
The First Amendment has limitations to keep people safe. The First Amendment limits anything that would cause danger to someone else or yourself. I believe that these limitations are required because without limitations anyone could say anything or do anything they wanted to. For example, if there were no limitations on expression then someone could say bomb on a plane or yell fire in a crowded movie theater which could cause danger to others around you. Free speech says that you can do anything you want or say anything you want, because the government can't stop you from saying something or doing something before you do it, but once you do it there will be consequences. Freedom of speech is not absolute and it is important that it is not absolute because it would be very dangerous to have absolute free speech.
I do think there should be limitations on some of our individual rights. If we did not have limits then people could do anything they please, and they would push their limits on what they can say and do and they would get away with it. Having limits on our rights is a good thing, in a way it is keep people's mouth shut, not everything should be said in front of most people. Whether it is in front of your family, friends, or in front of the President of the U.S.. For example, freedom of speech, you can say whatever you want. However, yelling fire in a movie theater is funny, but the effect will probably cause people to get hurt. Also it will probably end up getting sued by someone as well. The government has the right to restrict where, when, and how it is to say something appropriate to say something.
It is necessary to put limitations on certain rights because people would just take advantage and would say anything inappropiate and get away with it. If someone said bomb in an airport for no reason after an event like 9/11 then people would be put in a dangerous and scary situation. Therefore I believe that it is necessary to put limitations on certain rights.
I think it was very necessary for the country to eventually put limitations on people rights. If the limitations help out the rest of society and prevents them from getting hurt, the limitation, in my opinion is definitely necessary. The freedoms should definitely be absolute otherwise our country would be in a very compromised position, but with limitations. Like if your pleading Freedom of Religion on a attempted murder case, that should not be allowed. No kind of murder is right no matter what you believe.
It is necessary to put limitations on our rights because if citizens rights were absolute there would be no order and anyone could say or do anything they wanted. In addition, if our First Amendment rights were absolute citizens could be able to print false accusations about anyone they wanted. Also, anyone could cause panic in crowded areas. For example, someone could yell "bomb"or "fire" in a crowded movie theater creating uncontrolled panic. Lastly, if rights were not limited it would make life more stressful and harder then it needs to be.
It is necessary for the government to put some restrictions on your first amendent rights. This is the case because any case of your first amendment rights that puts you or anyone els in danger is just taking the first amendment to literally. I think that if people did not take the first amendment so literally then we would not have these limitations.
Post a Comment