VSSA2041 PUBLIC SPEAKING IV

(GROUP D)
SESSION A212
2021/2022

INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT
PERSUASIVE SPEECH

PREPARED FOR:
MADAM NOOR AIDA BINTI MAHMOR

PREPARED BY:

NAME MATRICS NOM.

NUR ARIENA SOFEA BINTI MOHAMAD AZNAN 281920
 Assalamualaikum and good morning, before we begin, I would like to introduce

myself. My name is Nur Ariena Sofea Binti Mohamad Aznan. My speech title is Freedom to

Speak.

The General Assembly Resolution of the United Nations says that everyone has the

right to say what they think. From this point of view, everyone has the right to have an

opinion and get or give information without interference from the government. From this

point of view, states can broadcast TV or movie businesses without public authority getting

in the way. But people who use these rights are expected to take on certain duties and

responsibilities. This is because they must follow the rules and face punishments set by the

law in a democratic society.

Freedom to speak comes with duties and responsibilities that are meant to protect

national security, public safety, the rights of others, the authority of the courts, private

information, and morals. When people in a democratic society aren't allowed to use their

freedoms, things often get out of hand. So, from this point of view, democratic governments

make sure that people can use their democratic rights in their own country. So, the point of

this paper is to talk about whether there are ever good reasons to put limits on freedom of

speech. Some restrictions on freedom to speak can be explained by the fact that there are

people who get upset when it is used to make fun of them. For example, there are people at

work who do certain things to make fun of people they think are not as good as they are. In

this way, it's important to remember that even though people do certain things to exercise

their freedom to speak, it's important to make sure they don't hurt other people's feelings by

spreading the message.

If people don't have freedom to speak, they can't ask tough questions about the

government. If people truly respected their government, they would never say anything bad
about it. The goal of the first amendment to the freedom to speak is to keep people from

being punished for their own ideas. In the past, many people have abused their right to free

speech and been prosecuted for their own ideas. But an idea shouldn't be allowed if it goes

against someone's rights. In this case, people shouldn't be beaten up or treated badly just

because some people don't think they are important or because of their skin colour. But

people shouldn't do things that hurt other people's feelings.

Everyone should take responsibility for any words they say that hurt someone else.

For example, someone might give a speech that leads to a rumour or makes some people in a

room panic. From this point of view, it's not clear if there should be limits on when someone

can sue someone else for damages. But people need to know that the law only gives criminal

punishments for things that are considered civil.

In an article where the Supreme Court said that teachers and students do not lose their

constitutional rights to freedom to speak at the schoolhouse gate, this situation should be seen

as horrible. This case can be linked to the controversy over the books that teachers are

allowed to give to their students. This also includes how much teachers are allowed to talk

about books. From this point of view, most students are usually taught ideas that aren't quite

right. From this point of view, teachers are usually not allowed to say how they feel about

these kinds of situations. Most of the time, this happens in elementary school and high

school. In this case, the students don't know that they are being given bad information

because they don't know what is right and what is wrong. So, from this point of view, one

could say that limiting teachers' freedom of speech gives students a false education. In

colleges, for example, other students usually decide what information can and can't be shown.

Most of these ways of restricting speech are not legal. Most types of censorship are done to

keep bad news about certain groups from getting out to a larger audience. Since the 1990s,

many students have been stealing newspapers with offensive articles at an alarming rate.
 It's clear that questions about whether free speech can be justified aren't just seen in

college and high school. The examples show that censorship is usually done for many

different reasons. Some of these reasons are usually unimportant, while others are personal or

irrelevant. Political speeches get a lot of attention, so they are the ones that are most likely to

be banned. Infringing on people's right to free speech in schools and other places is still a

controversial topic. When it comes to the question of whether free speech should be limited

or not, many authors still wonder if it should be completely free.

International law says that people should treat freedom to speak as a rule. Limits

should be put in place to protect other people's rights and reputations, national security,

public order, public health, and morals. A public official shouldn't have less freedom of

speech than other people. To limit freedom to speak, the law must be followed, which is what

lawmakers are supposed to do. So, from this point of view, it is important for the regulation

to meet certain standards that can help people understand what the results of their actions will

be. If the actions are not clear and are written in a bizarre way, they shouldn't be taken

seriously, and the information shouldn't be seen as controversial either.

To sum up, it's clear that people should be able to use their right to speak, but there

are times when they should be limited. In some situations, people are allowed to talk to each

other freely. This can ruin a person's reputation, make the country less safe, and disturbed

public order, health, and morals. So, from this point of view, it is important to ensure that

before limitations are imposed that the issue in question is needed. So, there are times when it

makes sense to limit freedom to speak.