Adopted in 1791, the First Amendment, states that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Pilon, p. 13) The freedom of speech documented in the First Amendment is not only a constitutional protection, but also an inevitable part of democratic government and independence, which are essential values in our society. “Censorship,” according to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “is an almost irresistible impulse when you know you are right” (Sunstein, p. 25). That is why the American citizen’s right to free speech is should be held as the highest virtue and any censorship of freedom of speech should not be allowed, but only respected. Freedom of speech is essential part of democratic government, because the only way truth can emerge is when there is an open competition of ideas.

However, there is a strong support of censorship when people start mentioning extremely offensive opinions. Should the freedom of speech be limited in this case? The answer is “No”. “If liberty means anything at all,” writes George Orwell, “it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” (Cox, p. 36) If we want to enjoy the freedom fully, the full protection should be given to the freedom of speech; there are no compromises about it. Freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment is not just a right, which can be declared or abolished. According to the “liberty theory”, proposed by some legal scholars, freedom of speech is an essential part of the liberty of every person, who pursues an individual self-determination and self-realization (Cox, 1981). Thus, [[https://www.storeboard.com/blogs/collectibles/does-the-news-media-have-a-moral-responsibility/2171449|Does The News Media Have A Moral Responsibility?]] of speech is also a part more global right to freedom of personal development and self-expression. Another theoretical ground to support the freedom of speech is called “tolerance theory”.

It holds that the ability to teach and promote tolerance is one of the most important assets of freedom of speech (Cox, 1981). From this perspective, freedom of speech itself excludes any type of intolerance, which sometimes appears in a threatening form (religious intolerance, racial intolerance. The “tolerance theory” implies self-restraint, which is the only appropriate response to any ideas, even those that we may personally dislike or hate. The “tolerance theory” provides a broader context for exercising tolerance in a conflict-ridden democratic society. In legal practice there are certain restrictions on freedom of speech imposed by the Supreme Court. They define a few categories of speech, which are considered to be not fully protected by the First Amendment. These categories include defamation, advocacy of imminent illegal conduct, obscenity and fraudulent misrepresentation (Farber, 1998). However, if the speech doesn’t fall within one of these categories, there are no grounds for the government to argue that freedom of speech should be restricted because of its harmful content. One of the common bases for partial censorship is proof that the freedom of speech causes imminent illegal action. This article has been created by [[//essayfreelancewriters.com/|Essay Freelance Writers]] !

The Supreme Court has already drawn a careful line between general abstract theories and political dissent on one hand and particular illegal acts incitement on the other. [[http://bachmannherskind71.pen.io|Soldiers Deserve More Freedom Of Speech]] is drawn by definition of “clear and present danger” test (Farber, 1998). The government cannot sue the speech on the basis of its tendency or possibility illegal conduct incitement. Before any speech is punished on the grounds of incitement, there is an obligatory three-part criterion that should be met. First, [[https://www.evernote.com/shard/s530/sh/02ceca20-d721-c483-e65b-007518f3db4f/454bf4c88108568402148e90f39c2c05|Primary Moments]] must directly incite lawless action. Second, the context of speech must imply imminent breaking of the law, rather than call for illegal conduct at some indefinite future time. Such “clear and present danger” test determines the level of probability of threat imposed by the speech in question. However, the actual evil, which the government tries to prevent by outlawing the advocacy, does not outweigh the harm of outlawing the free speech. Only when the imposed danger becomes evident, the freedom of speech may be questioned.