The document discusses whether the United States should limit journalists' freedom of speech to protect citizens. It notes that while free speech is an important American value, journalists reporting overseas have faced imprisonment or death for violating other countries' speech laws. The document considers arguments on both sides. On one hand, limiting journalism could prevent threats and save lives. However, others argue this infringes on constitutional rights. Overall, the document debates whether national security should sometimes outweigh free speech concerns.

1. Courtney Poling
Harold Blanco
First Year Seminar
30 January 2015
Debate Research Paper
Within the United States, there has been a few terrorist attacks and there are always
threats. The United States has numerous allies but we are also known for having several enemies.
These attacks and threats come from different reasons, but with recent news journalism freedom
of speech is to be blamed. The country as a whole is questioning whether journalist should have
a limitation on their freedom of speech in terms of what is published for the sake of protection of
the United States citizens. If innocent people’s lives’ are at risk, then yes, journalists should be
limited to what they can publish. There is no need to bring additional trouble into this country
and to hurt some of our own if it can be prevented. The United States is privileged enough to
have free speech, unlike many other countries. This privilege can also get us in trouble at times
and that is why there should be boundaries where to needed on what is put out to the public.
Throughout the article, Free Speech at Risk, it discusses whether the United States as a
country should alter the First Amendment for protection purposes. The freedom of speech has
made a large impact on the United States while growing as a country, and now this is becoming a
threat to many. Hundreds of journalists travel overseas every year to continue to stay updated
with worldwide news. During their visits, many eventually find themselves in jail cells.
Unintentionally, these journalists had expressed some kind of words that were prohibited in

2. countries such as; China, Iran, Turkey, and others. Slowly the numbers are on a rise as more and
more journalist are placed in jail or killed. Ultimately, the most important question is, should
journalist’ work be limited on what can be published? This leads to all the questions and
concerns of the journalists’ protection and United States’ citizens (Greenblatt, 2013).
This question can be debated both with benefits and effects to the same cause. When
growing up and having the ability to say anything at all, it is hard to stop and change your
beliefs. Many Americans take pride in the Ten Amendments that our founding fathers’ had laid
out for us as a country to grow proud and strong, but when lives’ are at risk people may begin to
believe that limiting journalists’ free speech is the best choice. If limiting what journalists’ can
publish will save lives’ then why not. American journalists are having enough troubles while
going overseas to stay protected, why keep putting themselves at risk? These journalists’ are
putting themselves at risk because they are speaking as if they were in The United States and do
not have to be worry about being tortured when stating their opinion. Many people do not realize
that other countries limit what citizens are allowed to say, if it does not follow the laws, that
person is put in jail. If the First Amendment is altered, more lives’ will be saved but also many
families will be saved the grieving of the loss of their loved one. When journalists’ are put away
in another countries’ jail, their families are unable to fight for the journalists’ freedom. Also,
while the journalists’ are overseas, they need to be informed of the different laws that are in
effect in different places. The United States can help with that, when regulating journalists’ free
speech, they can combine different laws from other countries to make many laws similar. By
making different countries laws similar, it will prevent people going to jail for lawful actions that
may have been unknown. One last benefit of limiting free speech is that many American lives’
would not have such a large risk of being taken. Terrorist are all over the world waiting for a

3. reason to hate America more and to give them a reason to try to kill. When citizens are given the
ability to speak their mind, sometimes it can be too much and be taken advantage of. While we,
as Americans, believe that saying certain things are not threatening, in many other cultures it is.
With other cultures, how an expression is interpreted can be extremely different. If this is
stopped, there will not be any worrying of citizens being in danger from other countries
(Greenblatt, 2013).
As of right now, without any limitation on free speech, journalists are being placed in jail
and possibly being killed. If The United States does not take a stand in the matter, the result
could be worse. Americans’ lives’ are always at risk with many terrorist groups plotting attacks,
but when we express our freedom of speech in other countries, it is only causing more problems
to come. There has been hundreds of journalists that have been attacked and so enough innocent
people will be attacked too. Freedom of speech is going to be causing more threatening acts upon
The United States, and could possibly come into our own land. Many Americans are sticklers to
the Ten Amendments, and believe that they were made to be left alone and to separate The
United States from other countries, which is does. Another point of view on the matter is, people,
especially journalists, are knowledgeable of what they are saying and making the public aware
of. If they are so persistent on making these events known to others, then these journalists should
take the responsibility of their actions, whether these actions result in jail or death. What is not
being thought of is that the government can only help American journalists so much, at a certain
point other countries’ will put a stop to Americans disobeying their laws and not allowing The
United States to bail out their own citizens. As stated in this article, The United States is already
having problems with other countries hacking into computer systems and phones. When having

4. these problems already, plus free speech in other countries is only adding on more tension
between countries (Greenblatt, 2013).
Within the world, many countries have freedom of speech and freedom of press, not just
America. In these countries, citizens believe that they should be able to express their rights
wherever they may be. This is causing an uproar within the countries that control the freedom of
press. It comes down to point that many countries with democracies are not having troubles with
freedom of press rather than countries that do not. The countries that are having troubles do not
want the citizens to voice their opinion, whereas in democratic societies the voice of citizens is
important (Greenblatt, 2013).
Within three articles that are attached below, they all have different stand points on the
freedom of press. One article is talks about how our freedom of speech is limited. The United
States watches for any type of threat that can be against out president or another person. When
expressing personal opinions about another person, everybody has to watch what is said to not
bring offense or harm to another. If we are already limited to what is being said now, why not
regulate what journalists are saying. When an everyday citizen can make a threat to another
person, they have charges brought among them. Often, in media, there can be threats made that
are either accidently or on purpose. When these threats are made, many of America’s lives’ are
put at risk. Since American’s are being held to certain standards of what can be said, so shouldn’t
journalists (Cherry, 2011).
Two of the other articles talk about stances from other countries. Though both Australia
and Canada are ran different than The United States, these explain how our tragedies affected
others. September 11 is one of the most horrific and memorable days that hurt many Americans.
As a terrorist attacks took place on our homeland, we were not the country impacted that day.

5. Many countries began to change law and make boundaries that journalists and civilians have to
follow. This was not to hurt natives, only to take protection over their own. Australia for an
example, began to limit what could be publish to prevent any future attacks that may have started
from journalists or any news that is put out to the public (Belanger, 2002) (Celermajer, 2008).
In the end I believe that journalists should be limited to what is posted to the public for
the sake of others. I believe that journalists do not realize how much of a toll their work can take
on others and how it can put others in danger. I do not think it is intentional when it is done, but
the consequences are unpleasant memories that many are forced to live with.

6. Work Cited
Belanger, Y. (2002). Journalist Opinion as Free Speech or Promoting Racial Unrest?: The Case
of Ric Dolphin and the Calgary Herald’s Editorial Presentation of native Culture.
American Indian Quartely, 26(3), 393-417.
Celermajer, D. (2008). The State of Free Speech. Australian Journal Of Political Science, 43(3),
495-511. Doi:10.1080/10361140802267274
Cherry, S. R. (2001). Why Free Speech Still Isn’t Free. Insight On The News, 17(30), 48.
Greenblatt, A. (2013, April 26). Free speech at risk. CQ Researcher, 23, 377-400. Retrieved
from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/

7. Work Cited
Belanger, Y. (2002). Journalist Opinion as Free Speech or Promoting Racial Unrest?: The Case
of Ric Dolphin and the Calgary Herald’s Editorial Presentation of native Culture.
American Indian Quartely, 26(3), 393-417.
Celermajer, D. (2008). The State of Free Speech. Australian Journal Of Political Science, 43(3),
495-511. Doi:10.1080/10361140802267274
Cherry, S. R. (2001). Why Free Speech Still Isn’t Free. Insight On The News, 17(30), 48.
Greenblatt, A. (2013, April 26). Free speech at risk. CQ Researcher, 23, 377-400. Retrieved
from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/