Example research essay topic: Freedom Of Speech Law Of The Land - 1,572 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

The Constitution: Law of the Land or Outdated News? Our constitution was written over a century ago, by our forefathers who had themes intentions. But what they did not have was a way to predict how our society has evolved, and how the Supreme Law of the Land would come under question. Many parts the Constitution have been left open to interpretation due to the changing times andstagnance of the Constitution itself. How would our forefathers feel about new issues arising?

Their original intent is something we do not know. But different arguments provide many different opinions in the public, and cause argumentation whether or not the Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land. Some topics are more discussed than others. In my opinion, the right to bear arms is constantly under question. Free speech isas being brought up, especially in the case of music and television.

The First Amendment grants us the freedom of speech. This gives us as citizens the right to say what we want, and to express our feelings. But lately, Congress seems thane been criticizing many venues for free speech. Television talk shows, lyrics in music, and even some publications have been sources of controversy.

But what can happen? Can Congress put a ban on these things? But no matter what the content of the talk shows, or how offensive the rap lyrics are, civil libertarians have taken no steps to regulate these things, because of their belief in the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitutionbelieved that to have a successful democracy, there must be a free exchange of ideas and thoughts between all people and government. The First Amendment is a reflection of this belief. But did they picture Jerry Springer having the KKK on his show, or the 2 Live Crew rap group calling women the B word, and using extreme profanity in all of their songs?

It is hard to believe they did. And whenever talk of stopping these shows or groups come up, so does the ever familiar words of the First Amendment Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. But there is some interpretation of the First Amendment for our protection. Speech that is considered obscene, false, or seditious is not protected under the First Amendment. Now the First Amendment does not say this in its words, but this has been the interpretation of it indecent years. In the Will reader, there is an excerpt by John Stuart Mill that discusses the First Amendment rights.

He believes that although free speech and press is a right granted by the Constitution, there must be boundaries placed on them. But this brings up another question. Where do you draw boundaries? Where does one draw the line that a talk shows content is too obscene, or a song is too vulgar to be aired? What is the definition obscene?

Of vulgar? There are no discrepancies in the Constitution that define these terms or the restrictions that should be used. It only says freedom of the speech and press. Period.

So should we let these shows and songs to be aired to the public, free for viewing by our children and impressionable youth? One must also keep in mind the artist and writers that have come under fire. These lyrics may be the voice of the musician, and thereon they are so vulgar is because that is all they saw growing up. Violence in our inner-cities, coupled with the lack of a solid education can lead to people who know northern life other than an obscene one. So do they have the right to put these lyrics on our stores shelves? If you were a strict constitutionalist, then yes these people have the rights voice their opinion.

More liberal views would believe that this garbage has no place input society, and is a blatant abuse of the rights granted to us. To find a middle ground anda compromise is the challenge, but no answer is within sight. In colonial times, most men kept guns and firearms to protect themselves. Thereason for this is because often times, the only defense against the British and Indians were themselves or local militias.

This was seen as the best way to keep peace on order among the colonies. The Second Amendment was passed to ensure this right for these reasons. But the times have changed, and there are no longer local or state militias. We now have police forces, sheriffs, and other local law agencies to serve and protect us.

As citizens, and as tax payers, this protection is there for us whenever we need. We no longer must defend ourselves from British invasion, or will have to quickly organize our neighborhood into a force that is ready for battle. So there is no longer a need for citizens to keep andreas arms, right? Wrong. This is another amendment that has come under a lot of controversy lately. Guns are a big concern of our society today.

With gang violence, kids shooting each other, and accidental deaths due to ignorant parents who do not lock up their guns, there have been major moves to get the guns off the streets. But this would also force many responsible gun owners to give up their firearms also. The National Rifle Association has been a huge supporter of the Second Amendment, saying it is their Constitutional right to keep their weapons. Gun supporters say that many of them use their guns for hunting and recreational purposes, and feel safer at home against break-ins because they have guns for their protection. But the issue of gun control also has its backing. The Brady Bill, passed in 1993, imposed a five day waiting period for handguns.

Is this bill unconstitutional? I do not think so, but if there were a bill to ban all weapons, then it would be. But did the Framers have the society we live in today in mind when they wrote this amendment? I feel at the time, the bill was passed out of necessity, in order to protect themselves. Not for gangsters to hold up liquor stores, or have shoot-outs with rival gangs. This amendment, like the freedom of speech and press, is up for debate, andis the root of a lot of controversy.

There is no question that at the writing of the Constitution, the Framers had themes intentions. They were trying to write a constitution that would withstand the ages. Constitution that would become the supreme law of the land, and set the framework for armstrong democratic government superior to all others. But there was one thing missing that would have made the Constitution perfect. A crystal ball.

The Framers had no way to show our country would develop and flourish. They wrote the best Constitutional possible for the time. Back then, there were no rap groups to abuse the freedom of speech. It was just a way to make sure the government could never silence the voice of the people. They could not know that we would develop an intricate law system, with strong police forces in almost every town, and strong judges and courts backing these forces.

We also have armstrong national armed force, ready to mobilize at a moments notice, whenever our countries freedom is being threatened. The criminal justice system we have developed over the years is excellent, and makes the need to bear arms for protection and invasion almost non-existent. It is understandable that there are responsible people who use guns for recreation, but once again, the Framers had no way of foreseeing these people, another groups like the NRA forming. Although the Framers had no idea of what the future would hold for our country, they did have the right intention.

This is what is most important. We must understand that the Framers were doing what was best for our country. If we can understand that, then we can work for the future. If we can understand the basic concepts and purpose ofthe Framers, we can implement these same intentions to a more modern law. We can ratify the Constitution to apply to the changing times, although it is very hard to do, button impossible.

But we must first understand the original intent. We must not just passage Constitution off as an outdated governing body. It is a foundation, to help form amore perfect law of the land, so generations after ours will be able to follow its writings and teachings, both old and new. So what is the final verdict?

Is the Constitution outdated, or is it still the Supreme Law of the Land? Well, I believe that it is a little of both. If we were to take the Constitution word for word, then it can be seen as a piece of writing that cannot governor changing times. But if we can interpret it to fit our times, then it is still fine. I am sure that the Framers, if they could see how our world has changed, would be more than happy to let us interpret it to make it current. After all, when they wrote this marvelous work omar, the had the best intentions for the people as well as the country in mind.

By allowing the Constitution to change slightly, we can hold the values that the Framers had, which was to do the best for our country.

Research essay sample on Freedom Of Speech Law Of The Land