Free Speech

1. Austin Tyree
Free Speech
In the article Free speech at risk, Alan Greenblatt gives multiple reasons concerning if
free speech should be regulated or unregulated. The main issue with this topic is that there are
many “gray areas.” A gray areas is defined as, “an intermediate area between two opposing
positions; a situation, subject, etc., not clearly or easily defined, or not covered by an existing
category or set of rules.” (Oxford English Dictionary) These gray areas give individuals the
ability to for their own opinions on the topic. Greenblatt does a wonderful job in giving facts that
support both sides of the argument, being the benefits of regulating free speech and the effects of
unregulated free speech, but by doing this, there is still a debate.
The benefits of regulating free speech are very straight forward. While free speech falls
under the First Amendment for America, other countries are not as fortunate. By having free
speech, there will always be a form of hate towards another individual’s beliefs, values and
religious viewpoints. Greenblatt states, “Last November, a mob burned Farooqi Girls' High
School in Lahore after a teacher assigned homework that supposedly contained derogatory
references to Muhammad.” (Greenblatt para. 48) This is a very extreme example of why free
speech should be regulated, but this example does show that people do take offense to what other
people have to say about their beliefs and values. By having a simple homework assignment that
included free speech against Muhammad, an entire school was burned to the ground. By pushing
beliefs on opposing groups or individuals, people are not only putting themselves in dangers
way, but they are also but the lives of other people around them in danger.

2. Another example of the benefits of regulating free speech is the effects it may have on a
country. People everywhere develop ideas and beliefs based off of what they see on social
media. Any person could spread their beliefs about a certain topic and that is fine, until they
again, upset another individual in their path to say that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
When people see a post concerning biased opinions about a group or country and they do not
take the time to research the topic for themselves, they form a biased opinion with the writer. It
does not take very long to form a group of people who do not have reliable supporting facts to
spread their beliefs. After their beliefs spread, a larger amount of people form the same opinion,
right or wrong, and they begin to debate on the topic. This causes an uproar in society and it all
began when a person used their right to free speech to start a riot. An example of this would be
when vaccines were thought to cause autism in infants. Even though the links between autism
and vaccines have been disproved time and time again, people still hold on to the idea because
one reliable person said it was true.
There are not only benefits to regulating free speech, but there are also positive effects
due to unregulated speech. This is where the “gray area” opens and allows for a debate. With
unregulated speech comes a true democracy. Information is trickled down the chain of command
until every person in the community is allowed to hear the proposal and is allowed to say what
they have to say about it. At this point the information is voted on by the entire community and a
verdict is reached. Unless the entire community is aware of every decision that is made, there is
not a true democracy taking place. This is especially present in the United States as the country is
ever so slowly becoming a socialist country. So, can every citizen of the United States say that
they have freedom of speech when they aren’t allowed to vote on every decision that is made?
Yes, Americans are allowed to say what they want over social media and in everyday life, but

3. the country itself does not allow for the common public to vote on a topic such as if the United
States should declare war on the Islamic terrorist groups. With this being said, the United States
is pushing further and further toward a socialist mentality and that will eventually affect the First
Amendment of the Constitution.
Anthony Mills states in Greenblatts article, “In any healthy democracy, the media play a
watchdog role, holding elected officials accountable and serving the public interest by satisfying
citizens' right to know what is being done in their name in the often not-so-transparent corridors
of power.” (Greenblatt, Mills) While reporters do their best to deliver the news to Americans,
there are still decisions that are made by the executive power that aren’t heard of for months after
they have already been voted on. Every individual should have an equal voice in the community
and that is how a democracy should be ran. Unfortunately, the United States have moved toward
a system in which the higher power makes executive decisions, and some of them we will never
hear about.
Free speech is given by the First Amendment and is intended to be followed to create a
subtle atmosphere where every individual has a voice in making decisions. In many cases, free
speech is taken away from people and it is happening all around the world. Free speech should
most definitely be unregulated as it allows for every person to have an input on any situation. In
the article, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — FIRST AMENDMENT — COMPELLED
COMMERCIAL SPEECH — D.C. CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT FDA RULE
MANDATING GRAPHIC WARNING IMAGES ON CIGARETTE PACKAGING
AND ADVERTISEMENTS VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT, the FDA takes aim at limiting how
much literature is able to be placed on a tobacco product. The FDA even goes as far as proposing

4. that there should be graphic images stating how tobacco use could potentially kill individuals. As
tobacco is a dangerous product, the free speech of tobacco companies should not be taken away.
Instead, the use of free speech by the FDA should be used to change the public’s view on
tobacco use. In this article the author states, “On August 16, 2011, five tobacco companies filed
suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the FDA, claiming the graphic
warning images rule violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act.”
(Harvard Law Review, 819) Even though the companies did not win the law suit, their argument
has many valid points and their right of free speech was taken from them. Just because a product
is unhealthy does not mean that their free speech, in the form of advertisement, should be taken
from them. The opposing companies, being the FDA in this situation, should only be able to
fight against the tobacco companies using their views and free speech.
Now with all of this being said, commercial speech is not the same as free speech, but
compare this situation with obesity. Obesity is growing on an exponential scale and is considered
to be a disease. Companies are still able to promote their food items placed on their menus even
though they may be the cause of obesity. McDonalds has even taken the liberty to be able to
“supersize” any meal on their menu. This doubles the calories and meets the criteria of a 2000
calorie diet in a single meal. So, should food companies not be able to exercise their right to free
speech and stop airing commercials about their food products? Should every happy meal have a
graphic image that states that this food product causes obesity? Free speech should be equal to
every company and every individual.
Free speech is a wonderful right and social media shows that every day. Almost every
person in the United States has a way of accessing the internet and every individual is granted
access to the internet. The article, THE "NEW" NEW YORK TIMES: FREE SPEECH

5. LAWYERING IN THE AGE OF GOOGLE AND TWITTER, allows people to see how greatly
social media affects the world in the case of free speech. The author, Marvin Ammori, states,
“The numbers suggest that companies like Google and Twitter have at least as great an impact on
free expression as do traditional newspapers. In 2013, the New York Times had a print and
digital circulation of nearly two million and was able to boast that it was the "#1 individual
newspaper site" on the web with nearly thirty-one million unique visitors each month.”
(Ammori, 2266) Ammori is stating that social media is able to bring the news to people
everywhere and that people are not shy about clicking their mouse’s to read the news. Ammori is
also showing that free speech, through social media, brings people together and allies them to
know what is going on in the world. All of this could not be dine if free speech was not available.
In this last essay, FREE SPEECH AND GUILTY MINDS, the author, Leslie Kendrick,
argues a topic in the gray area. The topic is hate speech and it is a highly debated topic. Kendrick
states, “Yet throughout First Amendment law, protection for speech often depends on the
speaker’s state of mind, or, as this Essay will call it, the speaker’s intent. The same statement
may be protected advocacy or unprotected incitement, depending on whether the speaker
intended to cause imminent lawlessness or violence. A threat is unprotected only if the speaker
intended to intimidate.” (Kendrick, 1256-1257) The answer to this situation is self-regulation.
Yes, people are allowed to say anything that they wish but there are some things that are simple
unnecessary. These unnecessary phrases fall into the gray area because who determines that is
decent to say and what is not? If free speech is truly free then how could there be restrictions?
There should not be restrictions, but people should take into consideration, using self-morals, and
know what is going to be perceived as a threat and what will not. Threatening another person is

6. completely different than telling them beliefs and values that have the ability to persuade them.
So, using self-regulation is the proper way to go about this gray area and to keep peace.
By regulating speech the idea of a democracy would not be realistic. Free speech is what
gives every individual the ability to be unique and have the opportunity to have an opinion in
deciding what is best for the community. Free speech is a wonderful way to express ideas, share
views on topics and have a unique personality. Without it, democracies would fall and every
person would not have the opportunity to be an “individual.” Instead, every person would have
the same demographics based off of a geographic location. Free speech should stay the way that
it is, and that is unregulated.

7. Works Cited
 Ammori, Marvin. "The "New" New York Times: Free Speech Lawyering In The Age Of
Google And Twitter." Harvard Law Review 127.8 (2014): 2259-2295. Academic Search
Premier. Web. 29 Jan. 2015.
 "CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FIRST AMENDMENT - COMPELLED COMMERCIAL
SPEECH - D.C. CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT FDA RULE MANDATING GRAPHIC
WARNING IMAGES ON CIGARETTE PACKAGING AND ADVERTISEMENTS
VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT. -- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. V. Food & Drug.."
Harvard Law Review 126.3 (2013): 818-825. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Jan.
2015.
 Greenblatt, Alan. "Free Speech at Risk." CQ Researcher 26 Apr. 2013: 377-400. Web. 28
Jan. 2015.
 "grey area | gray area, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, December 2014. Web.
28 January 2015.
 Kendrick, Leslie. "Free Speech And Guilty Minds." Columbia Law Review 114.5 (2014):
1255-1295. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Jan. 2015.