Are you looking this product? Now you can get product in ePub Format,just following step by step until finish you will be guided downloading this book for free, Enjoy it.

Most honest people will admit that at the mention of the words "First Amendment" or "Free Speech" we conjure up ideas of almost totally unrestricted creative expression and limitless things we can say, imply, or publish all with the blessings and protection of the United States Constitution.
I mean, come on does anyone seriously believe that that's what the framers intended?
Although a personal study of the First Amendment has left me satisfied in it's unambiguously stated meaning, I am less satisfied that the First Amendment right to free speech is necessary or prudent.
It's almost certain that Congress never foresaw all the frivolous lawsuits and personal wrangling which would arise from abuse of the Amendment. but it can also be reasonably stated that Congress surely believed in two things in relation to the First Amendment:
1. That the right would not be historically invoked with any frequency, and...
2. In the event that the right was invoked, it would be of stark necessity.
Congress was wrong!
While it's reasonable to expect that the government won't restrict our "right" to free speech, it's totally unreasonable to not expect to have to govern and restrict ourselves. Herein the problem lies.
Let's take a look at what the First Amendment says about Free Speech and other authority in "Their" own words.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.
Freedom of Speech
Right guaranteed by First Amendment of U.S. Constitution to express ones thought and views without governmental restrictions.
Fighting Words doctrine
The First Amendment doctrine that holds that certain utterances are not constitutionally protected as free speech if they are inherently likely to provoke a violent response from the audience.
Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, remark is addressed. the test is what persons of common intelligence would understand to be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight.
The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
Pretty clear isn't it?
Yet, we insist on consistently taking the Amendment out of context and for patently selfish and irresponsible reasons.
Did the Amendment give license to the public burning and defacing of the American Flag? What about fraudulently yelling "Fire!" in a theater or other crowded edifice? There are countless examples of abuse and mischaracterization of the First Amendment - it would be redundant and unnecessarily time consuming to list even a portion of them.
Taken in context Free Speech can never be wrong. Flag burners, if so inclined, should join
privately
with other Flag burners to express their "right" to free speech.
What's the difference between a Black person expressing the word "Niggah" to another receptive Black person, and a white person expressing the same word (or N-I-G-G-#-R) to the same people?
There is a difference. Freedom of speech applies in full force in private settings, cultural distinctions, specialized medium, and by invitation.
None of us has the right to say or do whatever we want under the cloak of Free Speech. In doing so, we subject ourselves and others to the sometimes dangerous whims of our private hearts.
Free Speech is intended for those of us with "Common Intelligence".
But Free Speech as Free Reign...? I'd say those are fighting words....What about you?