Can freedom of speech guaranteed by 1st Amendment be lawfully and Essay

Can freedom of speech guaranteed by 1st Amendment be lawfully and soundly used to advocate abolishment of 1st Amendment - Essay Example Even advocating illegal acts is legal. Therefore, if we can use our freedom of speech to, for example, control someone with our lies, or to impose our personal convictions to others, there is no reason why we could not use that same freedom to advocate its own abolishment. Every single individual has the right to express their opinion. Although, sometimes not entirely. In some cases an individual may not be allowed to fully express his right of free speech because it may lead to criminal actions or have a bad effect on the society. This way of prevention is called censorship and it is a crucial symptom of collectivism. Furthermore, if everything gets under the control of the government (gets nationalized), it will mark the end of free speech. No matter how offensive its content is, freedom of speech is protected by the first Amendment and it is believed that academic freedom is a â€Å"bedrock of education in a free society†, furthermore, it cannot be denied, unless the speaker breaks the rules of the first Amendment that forbid the use of fighting words (which are not essential part of exposition of ideas and are likely to provoke a person to take revenge). Everyone has a right to express themselves freely, as long as they respect the few of restrictions of the first Amendment. Using that right, we can lawfully speak about almost anything. And, yes, we can use that right to speak against the first Amendment without doing anything that is illegal. But the fact that we have the legal right to speak against the first Amendment does not mean that anyone has to hear about it. â€Å"Free speech does not require anyone to listen.† But who would want to limit or completely abolish his rights? Theoretically, freedom of speech can be lawfully used to advocate abolishment of the first Amendment, but there are not many people who would agree that it would be a good thing to abolish it, and, without the support of the listeners, the one who advocates the