Freedom of speech and its usage has been examined many times throughout history. Since its establishment on December 15, 1791, when it was adopted in the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment declared that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...” However, while the government cannot take away these individual liberties, it has the power to limit freedom of speech in specific circumstances. Unchecked freedom of speech can lead to violent hate speech, damage the country during wartime, and expose minors to unsafe material. Ultimately, I believe that having total freedom of speech can be very dangerous and that sometimes, it is right for the government to restrict it.
         

A crucial function of the government is to restrict hate speech that promotes violence. In the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v Ohio, Clarence Brandenburg, a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a rally insinuating revengeance against blacks and Jews. Brandenburg was found guilty under Ohio criminal syndicalism law, but the ruling was later overturned by the Supreme Court. While Brandenburg’s right to free speech was upheld, the court made it extremely clear that “free speech” is not tolerated when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” Thus, it is important to restrict free speech when one individual is exercising their freedom of speech at the cost of another individual’s right to safety. Overall, there are a few gray areas when it comes to hate speeches and violence, but nonetheless, they should be restricted.
          

Furthermore, the government should be able to restrict freedom of speech and press during wartime. Studies have shown that people tend to disseminate untruthful news during these periods. The anti-government propaganda can generate panic and unrest among the citizens, therefore weakening the country during a crucial time. Sometimes, it is necessary to restrict individual liberties in order to preserve the unity of a country. For example, in 1919, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Charles Schenck after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the military draft. This incident shows that the Constitution makes an exception for free speech during times of war. The government should be able to restrict freedom of speech in war to ensure that the country is kept together. Additionally, the government should limit free speech when it comes to the protection of minors. Minors are easily influenced and susceptible to offensive and damaging material. Dario Milo, the author of Defamation and Freedom of Speech asserts that, “When minors are exposed to things like pornography, they are likely to indulge in unsafe sexual practices. This is because they are aware of its existence, but are not aware of the appropriate measures that should be upheld in order to remain safe.” While aware of the existence of certain concepts, minors ought to learn “the appropriate measures” for things such as sexual practices through educational channels rather than unfiltered information online. The restriction of free speech in certain instances will keep minors safe both physically and psychologically.

In conclusion, there are circumstances when the freedom of speech ought to be restricted. Hate speech inciting violence, anti-war speech during wartime, and uncensored speech damaging minors are strong examples of such exceptions. Like all other things, free speech is a concept that requires moderation in our democracy.