In what situations should a person's First Amendment rights (Freedom of Speech) be limited?

Adopted in 1791, the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or press or the right of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Pilon, 2000, 13) Freedom of expression documented in the First Amendment is not only constitutional protection, but also an inevitable part of a democratic government and independence which are essential values in our society. "Censorship," said Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "is an almost irresistible urge when you know you're right" (Sunstein, 1993, 25). That is why the U.S. citizen's right to freedom of expression must place the greatest virtue and the censorship of freedom of expression should not be allowed, but only respect.

Freedom of expression is an essential part of democratic government, because the truth only way out is when there is an open competition of ideas. However, there is strong support for censorship when people start to mention very offensive opinions. If freedom of expression is limited in this case? The answer is "no." "If freedom means anything," says George Orwell, "which means the right to tell people what you do not want to hear." (Cox, 1981, 36) If we want to enjoy full freedom, full protection should be paid to freedom of speech, no commitments in this regard.

Freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment is not only a right, which may be declared or abolished. According to the theory of freedom ", proposed by some scholars of law, freedom of expression is an essential part of freedom of each person, an individual exercising self-determination and self-realization. Thus, freedom of expression is also a more comprehensive right to freedom of personal development and free expression.

Another theoretical foundation to support freedom of expression is known as "theory of tolerance." Argues that the ability to teach and promote tolerance is one of the most important asset of freedom of expression (Cox, 1981). From this perspective, freedom of expression precludes any kind of intolerance that sometimes appears in a potentially fatal form (religious intolerance, racial intolerance. The "theory of tolerance" implies self-restraint, which is the only appropriate response any idea, even those who personally may dislike or hate.'s "theory of tolerance, provides a broader context for the exercise of tolerance in a democratic society conflict.

In legal practice there are certain restrictions on freedom of expression imposed by the Supreme Court. They define certain categories of expression, which is considered not fully protected by the First Amendment. These categories include defamation, advocacy of imminent unlawful conduct, obscenity and fraudulent misrepresentation (Farber, 59). However, if the speech does not fall within one of these categories, there is no reason for the government to argue that freedom of expression must be restricted because of its harmful content.

One of the common bases for partial censorship is proof that freedom of expression makes the imminent lawless action. The Supreme Court has drawn a line between ...