Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech: Should there be limits to this constitutional guarantee?


Freedom of speech is speaking freely about your own opinions, whether it should be something that's spoken with kindness, or something that not all people agree with. In my perspective, freedom of speech should be limited because the public will critisize you, offense may be taken, and violence could occur.

One reason that the freedom of speech should be limited, is because first of all you'd get critisized. Critisizm involves judgement, and once you publicly speak your mind about something that someone else may not agree with, judgement occurs when you keep reinforcing it. The public may not share the same values, morals and beliefs as you and you cannot change their views. For instance, if someone were to speak publicly about different races, and then start discriminating certain ones, that would arise critisizm. Furthermore, this leads to the public taking offense of what a particular individual states openly. When offense is taken, several things start to happen: people begin to feel angry and frustrated, they will end up having low self-esteem, and then people result in feeling that they don't belong in that particular environment. Once someone publicly speaks about something discouraging, the community would sometimes tend to think that the one spokesperson is speaking for everyone in the community. As a result, anger and frustration would occur, leading to low self-esteem which then causes people to feel that they no longer belong in that community. Finally, if we go back to anger and frustration, we know what can come out of that: violence. Violent behaviour can occur when people say whatever they want to say. In highschool we all hear about gangs, drugs, and violence. For example, one particular gang could say something negative about another particular gang. From there on, they could discriminate against another's race, or appearance and say hurtful things. Not only could this utter violent behaviours for that other gang, but this could also be hurtful for other people to hear. Therefore, freedom of speech should be limited, for several things could happen if you were to say whatever you wished, whenver you wished.

In other words, people do have a freedom of speech. It's just that you shouldn't abuse your freedom by stating your opinions in hurtful ways, to make another individual obtain low self-esteem. If all of us were to get charged everytime we spoke to someone hurtfully, I think all of us would be close to being bankrupt. Why? Because everyone is different, and everyone has a different way of seeing things. We have all learned what kindness is: being polite with your words, speaking in a polite tone of voice, and having manners. Speaking rudely, especially in public where different people are looking at you, listening to the words that spill out of your mouth, is something that peopl should take precaution of. Therefore, freedom of speech should be limited because of the critisizm from the public eye, offense taken from the public, and unecessary violence that could occur.


By, Rummya Yohaseharan

"Wilhelm" by Gabrielle Roy

Task: Write a 3-paragraph blog post in which you argue for against the following statement:

"It was the mother's responsibility to intervene in her daughter's life as she did."

In your post, you should express your personal point of view, and provide strong arguments to support it. Include specific references from the story.



A mother-daughter relationship is one that requires a lot of love, care, and the ability to understand one another. In the short story "Wilhelm" by Gabrielle Roy, the mother of the main character felt that it was responsible of her to intervene in her daughter's life as she did. A mother should not always interfere in her daughter's life. A mother interfering in her daugher's life could create tension between the two individuals, result in a bad relationship between mother and daughter, or erupt a feeling of misery within the daughter.

For instance, a tension between any two individuals is disturbing. Even being in the presence of such an individual would probably trouble your feelings. The main character's mother in the short story "Wilhelm" did not understand the main character, her daughter. The first time her daughter brought up the subject of Wilhelm, and how he had sent her a box of chocolates from Holland, and walked her home, that was the beginning of a sort of tension that came between the two individuals: "Alas! The moment his back was turned, Maman asked me about my young man. 'Who is that great beanstalk?'" Referring to someone as a beanstalk gives a negative connotation, and from there, the rough relationship between mother and daughter had begun. A mother-daughter relationship should be open, and free of hurtful comments or demanding speech. When this sort of thing happened to the main character, she seemed to feel uncomfortable speaking to her mother, and being open with her. Her mother had said, "If he takes the same sidewalk as you, mind you cross right over to the other". Yes, the main character couldn't prevent Wilhelm from walking beside her but it also seemed like she just wanted him to be walking her home. She didn't mind, but her mother did. Because of this, the mother-daughter relationship grew very distant, and it appeared that the main character felt miserable for she couldn't go against her mother's words. If you felt comfortable talking about your feelings with your mother, wouldn't you feel upset and bothered if your mother couldn't understand how you felt? I'm sure most of us would feel that way. Well, so did the main character: "Maman was turned into something like a spy, busy with poking about in my wastebasket; and then i thought that she was certainly the last person in the world to understand me!" By the looks of it, it seems as though she feels frustrated at the fact that she wanted her mother to understand her, but her mother didn't. Her mother tried to keep them apart, by making sure that Wilhelm didn't walk home with her daughter, making sure that the letters were not to be sent anymore, and also by forbidding her to see Wilhelm. The main character had to go through some tough obstacles that had to do with love, and her mother. Misery and frustration had swept inside of her because of her mother's prejudice against the "Hollander", but there was nothing more she could do to tell her mother how she felt because her mother was being adament about the subject.

So should a mother always interfere into her daughter's life? Well through the tension, the result of a distant relationship, and the frustration of the daughter, my personal point of view of this situation is that a mother shouldn't always interfere in her daughter's life. There are times when a mother should tell her daughter to do the right thing if her daughter is following the wrong path, but to interfere with her daughter's love is something that shouldn't be what a mother does. A mother could advise her daughter on the type of man her mother thinks she should be with, but should never demand her daughter to not see the man, or to stop talking to the man through any means of communication. That would result in the daughter to do things without her mother knowing, and to feel that she cannot be open with her mother, just like how the main character in "Wilhelm" had felt. Therefore, the mother intervening in her daughter's life as she did led to several bad outcomes, instead of good morals and content feelings.

By Rummya Yohaseharan