There has been a dramatic shift in the way people view free speech over the past few decades. Comedians, actors, and college campuses have all adapted to this. It's hard to say whether we should allow absolute free speech or whether we should draw the line and limit free speech, and if so, where? What many want is to have hate speech laws, protecting against groups like the Ku Klux Klan and anti-Semitic groups. After all, they do not benefit society and only cause harm. Others will argue that if we ban hate speech laws, we violate Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees freedom of thought, belief and opinion, as well as freedom of expression, and the First Amendment in the United States. Freedom of thought is what democracy is based on, and if we limit speech, we limit the ability to argue. The side that would support hate speech would counter that we can argue without the use of hate speech. Another topic regarding free speech is whether or not we should censor porn. Even if some people do not approve of porn, everyone should still be given the opportunity to consume or create discourse, while the argument made by conservatives suggests that communities have the right to protect themselves from forces that could lead to harm or destruction of shared content. values. There are arguments for both sides and it's hard to find a place to draw the line. If freedom of expression continues to be limited more and more every year, what will happen to our society? Will the limit of what we can say shrink every year, limiting our rights and freedoms even further? Having said that, this paper will argue that we should have the right to free speech and that there should be no hate speech laws. We should not censor pornography, as it would violate our freedom of speech. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Freedom of speech is becoming a serious issue, considering that what was okay to say 20 years ago can now be considered offensive, as shown in comedy, and the film industry. An example of this is how "Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the hypersensitivity of college students, saying that too many of them can't handle a joke." It's true that free speech is getting out of hand when it comes to what we can and can't say, especially microaggressions. Microaggressions are small actions or verbal choices that do not appear to have malicious intent but are still considered a type of violence. There's no reason to get offended if you're asked "where are you from" or if it's suggested "the most qualified person should get the job." In the United States, “Congress does not make laws. .. limiting the freedom of speech" contained in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights." This law means that even if some people feel harmed and distressed by certain groups, it is their democratic right to express their opinion. First, we need to define hate speech: Hate speech, on the other hand, requires an overt act of violence motivated by hatred towards a target group. People who want to limit free speech support hate speech laws because they protect minorities. Many believe that “regulations of speech (in the technical sense) are justified only if the harms associated with the speech clearly outweigh the harms that would be associated with itsregulation". Hate speech is present in groups like the KU Klux Klan, which are typically small and built on hatred toward non-white “minorities.” “If racist hate speech silences people of color, and that silencing violates the right to free speech, then failure to regulate hate speech will harm free speech.” This means that hate speech silences minorities, this is not a limitation on their freedom of speech. These hate groups may not cause violence, but they certainly cause harm and distress to minorities. These groups bring no benefit to anyone and only cause harm, which is why many people do not believe that these groups should be allowed to exist. As for the Ku Klux Klan, I believe that while it is offensive and may cause distress to others, it is still their fundamental right to express their opinion even though we may not agree with it. As Mill said: “By saying what we think and paying attention to the opinions of others, we, as a society, are more likely to form more justified and therefore true beliefs.” (1978) Regulating racist hate speech would cause more harm than good: “Preventing hate speech would therefore prevent us from identifying racists.” One key reason why more and more people are in favor of hate speech laws is the presence of “generational snowflakes.” A snowflake is often used as a derogatory shorthand to refer to millennials, a generation said to be easily offended, attention-seeking and lacking in resilience. “Generational snowflakes” are the ones who blow any controversial statement out of proportion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion; even when it causes harm and distress; it is still our democratic right to express our opinion. “Snowflakes” are a big part of why free speech is such a big issue right now. A small group of "snowflakes" can attract a lot of media attention, which is how little things someone says can be blown out of proportion. An example of this is in the article "Codling the American Mind," when a student told a group of loud black sorority girls "shut up, you water buffalo," a term used to describe an inconsiderate or rowdy person. This term was interpreted racially and was later accused of racial harassment. This is just one of many examples that demonstrate that free speech is getting out of hand. Whatever we say, it is likely to offend someone, especially when we talk about controversial issues. If we limit speech, we limit the ability to argue. We need to listen to both sides of the spectrum. After all, listening to criticism from both sides of the political spectrum and discussing how people grow up and what democracy is based on. The article "Coddling the American mind" talks about how cultural changes in recent decades have made parents more protective, shielding them from the "real world." As a result, they become more offended by criticism and negative comments. 'In order to make good judgment, citizens need to be exposed to a range of ideas; free speech allows citizens to be uninformed about a variety of viewpoints by people who strongly believe in them. We must remember how freedom of speech has positively benefited us in the past, when we think about the acceptance of gay marriage, the acceptance of African Americans, and now the introduction of gender-neutral bathrooms. “In order to make good judgments, citizens must be exposed to a range of ideas; freedom of speech, 2010, 769-780.