Argument paper for american political science Essay

Argument paper for american political science - Essay ExampleAs heavy as freedom of spoken communication is to facilitating wanton public discourse in a commonwealth, on that point are certainly dresss that most democratic countries have considered reasonable to place on that right. Freedom of side has been subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions designed to accommodate the dissemination of ideas in a carriage that does not hurt people or threaten the security and well being of society. Lewd and obscene, profane, libelous or slanderous expressions are all categories that have been considered ripe for government regulation in liberal democracies. So-called fighting words, those aimed at inciting violence or breach of peace, have also been restricted (Beauharnais v. community of State of Illinois, 1952). One cannot, nor should they reasonably expect to be allowed to, yell fire in a herd theater when no such emergency exists. Such limitations on legal transf er are consistent with the purport and intent of the First Amendment, which arguably was intended by the Framers of the Constitution to protect a free and indeterminate public discourse from government intrusion. This essay goes on to discuss these and other reasonably acceptable limitations on free speech in liberal democracies.Restricted Speech under the First AmendmentThere is a vast body of American jurisprudence that addresses the extent to which the government can constitutionally abridge speech and other forms of expression. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment numerous times, and in so doing has clearly specify the scope of the freedom of speech and the extent to which government may limit it. In summary, the general ordinance is that all speech is presumably protected unless the government has an important, substantial and content-neutral interest in limiting it, and that limit is narrowly tailored to the interest. According to the Supreme Court, Go vernment regulation of expressive conduct is sufficiently reassert if it is within the constitutional power of the government, if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest, if the governmental interest is misrelated to suppression of free expression, and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is immanent to furtherance of that interest (Barnes v. Glen Theater, Inc., 1991). That general rule raises a host of other questions around what is meant by important or substantial interest, what is considered a content-neutral restriction, etc. All of these more miniscule issues have been addressed by the Court. Ultimately, at least in the United States version of liberal democracy, the government has been able to regulate speech under many circumstances when doing so furthers legitimate and reasonable interests. Such forms of expression as pornography, mercantile speech (advertisements), political campaign donations, and others have been reasonably restricted within the U.S. These kinds of limitations are arguably attach and necessary for an ordered society in which a balance is sought between the need for nudeness and free thought and expression, and the need for people to be able to live comfortably and securely.Liberal democracy is not anarchy. It does not mean that people can say or do