speech on values respect

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

Speech on Respect

Speech on Respect in English for Students

Respect is a universal act of displaying admiration and love for another person. Respect also inculcates a positive feeling in something or someone who you consider important or hold in high regard. Respect is sometimes very closely related to the ego of a person which if disturbed can cause problems to the person not Respected well .Respect can be individualistic which is Respect for one’s own self that is self-Respect, and the other one being Respect for others. In this article on Speech on Respect, we will take a look at different ways to speak about Respect. It can be given as Long Speech on Respect, Short Speech on Respect or Short Speech on Self Respect.

Long and Short Speech on Respect for Students

Long speech on respect.

This form of Speech on Respect for Others is helpful for students in grades 8-12.

Good Morning everyone Respected the Principal, Teachers and my dear friends. I am here to speak about Respect. Since childhood, we hear from everybody about how it is important to show Respect to everyone in the family, grandparents, elders and teachers. Respect is basically a language that one expresses differently for every one they hold in high regard and feel Respectful towards.

Respect is shown differently in different cultures. In our country, India we say Namaste with our hands folded and bow or touch the feet to show Respect when we greet each other. This cultural tradition is an ancient one and everyone around the world also has adopted this way because of the meaning and value it holds.

Each and every individual is worthy of Respect regardless of their age, class, profession, color or gender.

And the meaning of Namaste also conveys the same, which means we are equal, and I Respect you by bowing down.

In the schools and colleges, we can also convey Respect by addressing our teachers as Sir and Ma’am instead of calling them by their first names. Whereas this form of addressing does not hold true for the corporate culture. In offices, it is encouraged to call each other by their first names to develop a healthy working relationship without any biasedness.

So much Respect is shown by physical gestures but much more can be conveyed by body language. One can also be Respectful to their friends and loved ones, by giving them undivided attention when they are speaking, being helpful, not using harsh words, opening the door for the one behind you, being kind is also a sign of Respect. Apologizing for one’s mistakes, saying sorry, please, and thank you is also a sign of Respecting the other person as well as yourself.

The other form of Respectful behavior also holds true as to how we behave with ourselves and that is called self-Respect. Self-Respect is basically leading your life with grace and dignity without hurting others in the journey. Self-Respect has nothing to do with humiliating others for fulfilling our own agendas. It means showing care towards self and others equally and living a fulfilling life.

In conclusion, I would like to say one need not be loud when being Respectful, these subtle gestures are enough to convey your admiration and love for the person. Respecting and honoring someone is truly a great sign of love; it makes the day positive. It also makes you feel better about yourself so choose your way of Respecting others and yourself and do not indulge in negativity.

Short Speech on Respect for Students

Short Speech on Respect can also be presented as Short Speech on Self Respect and this will be extremely useful for students in grades 4-7 that will help them learn about this topic in simple words.

Good morning everyone, I Abc (mention your name) feel very honored to speak on the topic of Respect which is something that is so important, universal and yet so personal. Respect is a sign language that conveys what you feel for the other person in a simple and positive way. There is a saying that goes, “treat others the way you wish to be treated”, and if you wish to be Respected it is important that you also treat others with equal Respect.

When you admire someone and hold them in high esteem it is natural that you tend to be more Respectful towards them. Being Respectful to others and treating them in an equal manner also means being Respectful to yourself. As anyone who displays Respectful behavior imparts positivity in everyday life and this way of leading life is more peaceful and less complex.

Respect can be displayed in many different ways depending on the relationship you have with the person you admire or the situation you are in. It is important to Respect everyone regardless of whether you disagree with them and have different opinions than them.

Being Respectful doesn’t require a lot of effort, rather one needs to do it with just good intentions and value the presence of another person and acknowledge their view. And the world would be a much better place if we just accepted and Respected our differences.

Respect Speech 3 Minutes

This Speech is useful for students in grades 1-3 as they can understand and speak about the topic in 10 Simple Lines.

Respect is an emotion one feels for something or someone, that can also be a form of admiration.

Respect can be expressed and conveyed to people in different ways.

Everyone is worthy of Respect, regardless of our differences.

Conveying and showing Respect makes one feel honored and valued.

When people are treated with Respect their day becomes positive.

Respect shows sincerity towards others.

Self-Respect is the way of Respecting oneself and not compromising others.

Self-Respect and Respect are the two sides of the same coin.

Respect for all kinds shows your confidence, maturity and belief in yourself.

In a world with so many divisions, it is important to have Respect for one another to have healthier relationships.

Respecting and being Respected is an intangible wealth that one possesses. It is a coherent trait that is mostly the outcome of proper guidance and proper parenting. It is not only shown by mere physical actions but must also be evaluated at heart. Respect for others is very important for the individualistic growth of a person, it not only shows that the person is very modest and humble but also presents a very comprehensive and clear picture of his personality. The trait of Respecting is very admired on a professional and personal level. It helps in building healthy and consistent relations with our peers and friends.

Respecting others and being others also affirms the stature of a person as a human in the society. It establishes the presence of intellect, modesty and decency in a person. It is always very loved and admired by others also, a person who Respects others is always Respected by others as well. When we Respect or disRespect others, we are reflecting the parenting and guidance that we have received from others and as such can be the cause of pride or prejudice to the Respect and dignity of our parents. Proper parenting and proper guidance is very important for the development of a great personality. Education also plays a very important role in our ability and understanding of Respect for others. However it is not necessary that only educated people will Respect others or an illiterate person will not Respect others.

Respect is not based on the amount of money one has or on the position of power that one may hold. IrRespective of the social hierarchical position, Respect should be equal to everyone and doesn’t discriminate on the basis of social differences. Often doctors, politicians and rich people are seen to be Respected but the others with low wealth, no power and doing menial jobs equally deserve the same level of Respect.

Humiliation and disRespect to a person on the basis of any distinctions is injustice. Not Respecting others may restrict the person from enjoying his fundamental rights and thus account for a violation of law. Our constitution also directs us to maintain the dignity of every individual and not violate the integrity and dignity of an individual. The constitution makes no discrimination in this regard and thus mandates that we Respect all people. The fundamental duties in our constitution also direct to maintain the Respect of ourselves and others and not to bias on any ground.As a citizen, it thus is our duty to Respect all people and make them feel equally safe and secure in their country.

Most of the traditions and cultures around the world very precisely put forward the regards to Respect others and to seek Respect. The traditions also don’t discriminate on any ground here. The societal stigmas present in society may sometimes not be in line with our constitutional principles or traditional directions. There are certain societal dogmas like caste distinctions, wealth differences, age etc that come out to be derogatory and disRespectful to other people. These dogmas and beliefs, caste distinction and wealth differences, age need to be put aside and minds should be enlightened that humans are equal.

Age is also not a factor in deciding whether a person should be Respected or not, children also deserve to be Respected and appreciated. It falls upon the shoulders of their parents to make sure that they Respect their children and also make sure that others also don’t disRespect them. Wherever such an event comes up where the parents feel that their children are not Respected well, they must act accordingly and make sure their children don’t feel disRespected and insulted. Children are very vulnerable to negative effects and disRespecting them can have physical and mental effects on them.

People can be seen disRespecting other people in front of them or behind their backs, that is not Respect, that is hypocrisy. Respect for others should be deeply embedded in the hearts and minds. Be it for a sweeper or a cobbler, politician or a doctor, all deserve equal Respect as a human and no one deserves to be humiliated and disRespected. Not Respecting others may also have effects on the children of these people because they’ll feel as if they are someone at a lower level, of a lower kind or less human. This is not a proper direction to move in and may lead to severe consequences on these children.

A person who Respects others is very much loved and cared for by all people. A Respectful person also becomes a role model for other people, especially for the students and hence we must strive to become better of ourselves and always be in the form to Respect others.

Speech on Respect for Students and Children

Speech on respect.

The word ‘respect’ is a broad term and has a huge meaning in itself. However, different people understand this term in different ways. Respect is a feeling that fills positivity in a human being or an action that we express towards something. Moreover, we can also get it as something held in high esteem or favour for someone. Respecting someone is an indication of ethical behaviour. Unfortunately, in modern times, people are forgetting and fading the value of respect. Notably, there are 2 important aspects of respect that are self-respect and the respect that we give to other people. Read speech on respect here.

Self-Respect

The word self-respect also has a wide and deep meaning. Self-respect basically means to love our self and to behave with honour and dignity at the same time. Self-respect reflects respect for our own self. An individual who has self-respect will always treat himself/herself with honour and will always value himself/herself.

Furthermore, lacking our own respect for us is a matter of dishonour for us. A person who does not respect or values himself/herself should never expect respect from other people. The reason behind this logic is that no one likes to treat an individual like this with respect.

Lack of self-respect brings negative concerns and attitude for the person. A person who lacks self-respect is the one who does not get respect from any other person. In addition, such an individual has a higher chance of indulging in bad activities. Also, the person who lacks self-respect suffers through a major lack of self-confidence in himself\herself.

Get the Huge list of 100+ Speech Topics here

Self-respect is a reflection of maturity and confidence that makes us feel great and makes us believe that we are not less than anyone. Self-respect makes a person more responsible and sincere towards his/her duties and responsibilities.

Furthermore, the person with self-respect is always stronger than a person that has no self-respect. A person with self-esteem always stands for his/her rights, values, opinions, and many other important things in his/her life.

Self-respect improves the morality and ethics of a person and makes him/her valuable and important for many people. Such people have a quite good and decent nature. Above all, self-respect makes you a much better person than a person with no self/respect.

Respect of Others

Each of us should respect all human beings. Respecting someone is an essential need of living and surviving in a society today. We usually give a basic level of respect for other people. Furthermore, we should respect the people in a proper way who impact our lives.

People who usually impact our lives are parents, relatives, teachers, friends, colleagues, etc. One of the finest ways of respecting someone is listening to them carefully and valuing their opinions.

Listening to another person’s thoughts, way of thinking, point of views, etc. is an excellent way of respecting them. Notably, we must permit a person to present his/her views and opinions even if we disagree with them.

Another essential aspect of giving respect to others is religious or political views. Religious and cultural beliefs of all peoples should be given a lot of consideration and importance.

Moreover, respecting other people’s religions is a sign of showing mature respect towards them. Everyone should respect the people who have authority. Almost each of us deals with people in our lives that hold authority.

So overall, respect is not just something that makes us feel good and positive but it is an important element of life in the present time. Respecting someone can never be something negative. Moreover, it maintains a good relationship and understanding between two persons. Everyone deserves respect and should also respect other people in this world.

Essays for Students and Children here !

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Speech for Students

Speech on India for Students and Children
Speech on Mother for Students and Children
Speech on Air Pollution for Students and Children
Speech about Life for Students and Children
Speech on Disaster Management for Students and Children
Speech on Internet for Students and Children
Speech on Generation Gap for Students and Children
Speech on Indian Culture for Students and Children
Speech on Sports for Students and Children
Speech on Water for Students and Children

16 responses to “Speech on Water for Students and Children”

this was very helpful it saved my life i got this at the correct time very nice and helpful

This Helped Me With My Speech!!!

I can give it 100 stars for the speech it is amazing i love it.

Its amazing!!

Great !!!! It is an advanced definition and detail about Pollution. The word limit is also sufficient. It helped me a lot.

This is very good

Very helpful in my speech

Oh my god, this saved my life. You can just copy and paste it and change a few words. I would give this 4 out of 5 stars, because I had to research a few words. But my teacher didn’t know about this website, so amazing.

Tomorrow is my exam . This is Very helpfull

It’s really very helpful

yah it’s is very cool and helpful for me… a lot of 👍👍👍

Very much helpful and its well crafted and expressed. Thumb’s up!!!

wow so amazing it helped me that one of environment infact i was given a certificate

check it out travel and tourism voucher

thank you very much

Download the App

Speeches > Edwin G. Austin Jr. > Reverence: The Act of Showing Respect

Reverence: The Act of Showing Respect

Edwin g. austin jr..

May 21, 2002

My dear brothers and sisters, I am grateful to be here with you this day, and I pray for the light of our Father in Heaven to direct my thoughts and to enlighten our minds.

I feel honored each and every day to be numbered with you here at Brigham Young University. Our university community is unlike any other community in the world. Here, in a relatively small area, there are thousands of young adults who believe in the Savior—even Jesus Christ—who live each day of their lives striving to emulate His example in an effort to become more like Him. Do you realize just how peculiar and unbelievable this must seem to the rest of the world?

Arise and Shine Forth

Indeed, we are a peculiar people. President Gordon B. Hinckley explained it this way:

Of course, we’re different from the world. If the world continues to go the way it is now going, we will become even more peculiar. We will stand for truth. We will stand for right. We will stand for honesty. We will stand for virtue. We will stand for personal cleanliness. We will be more and more a peculiar people. (Miami Florida Fireside, November 17, 1996.) [ TGBH, 676]

The Lord has declared, “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth” (Deuteronomy 7:6).

In a world founded upon opposition, we, as Latter-day Saints, must distinguish ourselves among nations through our expressions of total respect toward one another, our reverence for deity, and in glorifying all that is sacred and holy. “Verily I say unto you all: Arise and shine forth, that thy light may be a standard for the nations” (Doctrine and Covenants 115:5).

Brothers and sisters, we are a special people unto the Lord, and we have been chosen to set a standard for the rest of the world. Today I would like to speak of a true principle that the world would deem strange or foolish: the importance of understanding and demonstrating proper reverence and respect for one another, for deity, and for all that is sacred and holy.

A concern for our lack of reverence and respect is not at all new. Let me share with you a short sermon given by President Wilford Woodruff:

I have heard President Young and President Taylor a great many times from this stand ask the people to keep quiet until the meeting was dismissed; but as soon as the sermon ends there are a hundred of them [who] rush for the doors. I do not like it. It pains me to see the President of the Church make this request, and the people pay no attention to it.

Now, in this fast age we are passing from a polite age to a very rude one in many respects. When I was a boy sixty-five years ago, and went to school, I never thought of passing a man whom I knew in the street, or a woman, without taking off my hat and making a bow. I never thought of saying “yes” or “no” to those that were placed over me. I was taught to say “yes, sir,” and “no, sir”; but today it is “yes” and “no,” “I will,” “I won’t,” “I shall” and “I shan’t.” Now, when I see this rudeness amongst us, I sometimes wish that the spirit of the New England fathers was more among the people. But I do hope, brethren, sisters and friends, when a man stops talking and the choir rises to sing, that you will keep your seats. You can afford to do this as well as the President of the Church, the Twelve Apostles, or others who are sitting on this stand. You don’t see us jump and run for the door the moment a speaker is done. The Lord is displeased with any such thing. [ The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946), 183]

It almost sounds like President Woodruff has attended some of our BYU devotionals!

Respect Is Expressed in Many Different Ways

While serving a mission to the people of the Samoan Islands, I quickly learned about the importance of showing respect. The traditions of Samoa, locally known as “Fa`asamoa,” are very specific as to what is correct or not correct for a given situation.

For example, when walking through a village, it is common to be invited into a person’s home to rest and share a meal. A person will call to you from their home (and I do not mean on a telephone), and there is a special way that this is done. In return, the prospective guest knows the proper way to politely refuse or accept this invitation. If accepted, footwear is first removed before entering the person’s home or “fale.” Then, before casual conversation begins, formal speeches are exchanged. In each speech a person’s position within the community and also their appropriate rank or title within the Samoan system of chiefs are recognized. Each person present in the home and their status within the village is acknowledged, beginning with the highest chief and concluding with the children. There is a special way to do this. Every person must be knowledgeable of this procedure in order to function appropriately within the village. In addition, a special form of language is employed during these speeches-dev. Words are selected carefully. This “chief’s language” accords due respect to the recipients of the speech, and the knowledge thereof brings respect in turn to the person who articulates it correctly.

Here at home in the United States we also have many simple practices whereby we demonstrate respect for one another, an office, or a position. For example, when a woman walks into a room of seated men, they commonly stand to acknowledge her. We are also taught from a very early age that it is polite to first knock on the door of someone’s home before entering. And when we are being addressed by another, we know the importance of turning our attention away from other distractions to focus on the person speaking to us. We have learned to open doors for one another. In many communities of our southern United States, individuals address their elders as “Sir” and “Ma’am.” We address the president of the United States as “Mr. President.”

In the Church we have also preserved particular traditions of respect. When our prophet enters a room, we show our love and respect by standing. As we worship together, the presiding authority is always offered the sacrament before the rest of the congregation. We do not refer to our Church leaders by their casual names but instead address them as “President,” “Bishop,” “Elder,” “Brother,” or “Sister.” When Christ appeared in the Americas, “the whole multitude fell to the earth” (3 Nephi 11:12).

By displaying this type of respect, we are not necessarily esteeming the person. More often we are expressing respect and reverence for the position or calling they hold. In the Church these callings are considered holy and sacred.

By Definition

The secular world defines the word respect in the following manner: to “esteem,” “to acknowledge the . . . integrity or worthiness of; . . . to show consideration for” ( Reader’s Digest Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1987, s.v. “respect,” 1430). Reverence is the “act of showing respect.” It is “a feeling of profound awe and respect, and often of love” (s.v. “reverence,” 1435). The world and the Church do not differ on these definitions.

By Commandment

Through the ages men have been taught the principle of reverence through commandments. All of us are familiar with the account in Exodus of the Lord’s appearance to Moses at the burning bush. When the Lord called, Moses answered, “Here am I” (Exodus 3:4). And then the Lord commanded, “Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (Exodus 3:5).

The Ten Commandments instruct us further regarding this subject: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain”; and, of course, “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Exodus 20:7, 12).

Five Ways to Increase Our Reverence

Today I would like to examine five suggestions for improving the ways in which we demonstrate respect.

1. Develop an Attitude of Reverence and Respect in Your Personal Life

Make a list of those things in your life that deserve your respect. Consider those people you love the most: your parents, your children, your husbands, and your wives. Consider those things that are sacred. This list should include the laws and covenants of the gospel and the holy priesthood (see MD, s.v. “reverence,” 651). Consider the people who have been placed over you in your family, in school, in the workplace, and in the organization of our Lord’s Church. Remember, it is the position, office, or calling that deserves our reverence and esteem. For example, we should always address the bishop with the title “Bishop” preceding his surname to show proper respect for his office.

In a world where we have too frequently allowed casual attitudes to dictate our dress and our language, we who are members of the Lord’s church must not become casual concerning those things that we consider sacred. We cannot allow the popular fashion of improper dress and language to lead us from the “strait and narrow path” we have chosen to follow.

2. Avoid the Too Frequent Repetition of Sacred Names

Christ set this example as He prayed: “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name” (Matthew 6:9).

Joseph Fielding Smith taught:

The great lesson for us to learn, in all our preaching, writing, and conversations, is to use the titles of Deity sparingly, not with familiarity, or with lack of reverence. . . .

There is nothing that should be held in more sacred reverence and respect than the name of the Supreme Being and the name of his beloved Son, our Redeemer. . . .

Even in the preaching of the gospel, the elders of Israel should exercise great care not to repeat these sacred names too frequently and needlessly when other terms of designation will suffice. [Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 195456), 1:16, 3:121]

In the revelation on priesthood given March 28, 1835, the Lord teaches us this important principle:

There are, in the church, two priesthoods. . . .

Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.

But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. [D&C 107:1–4; emphasis in original]

3. Learn Prayer Language

Elder Didier of the First Quorum of the Seventy (and who, by way of interest, is personally fluent in seven languages) states that “language is of divine origin” (Charles Didier, “Language: A Divine Way of Communicating,” Ensign, November 1979, 25). And Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught us about what he refers to as “the special language of reverence and respect.” He wrote, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches its members to use special language in addressing prayers to our Father in Heaven” (“The Language of Prayer,” Ensign, May 1993, 15).

A friend of mine recently related to me the way by which he had discovered the importance of prayer language. When he was younger he had felt a desire to speak to Heavenly Father in the same manner he would speak to his earthly father. He was very sincere as he strove to further this type of relationship with his Father in Heaven. However, with increased understanding and a few more years of wisdom—and a wife who unabashedly corrected him—his understanding of prayer language has changed. He can no longer contemplate how any individual could justify speaking to Heavenly Father—who is King of Kings—in the same fashion he or she would talk to an ordinary man.

President Spencer W. Kimball taught, “In all our prayers, it is well to use the pronouns thee, thou, thy, and thine instead of you, your, and yours inasmuch as they have come to indicate respect” ( Faith Precedes the Miracle [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1978], 201).

Scripture has recorded three beautiful prayers offered by the Savior during His earthly ministry. They are found in Matthew 6:9–13; John 17:1–26; and 3 Nephi 19:20–23. They are models by which we all can emulate our Savior when He prayed.

Modern revelation also gives us important instruction in prayer. If we review carefully the few prayers that we are instructed to pronounce word for word while performing such sacred ordinances as baptism and the sacrament, we will immediately recognize many of the correct principles of showing proper respect to deity.

Elder Oaks reminded us:

Literary excellence is not our desire. We do not advocate flowery and wordy prayers. We do not wish to be among those who “pray to be heard of men, and to be praised for their wisdom.” (Alma 38:13.) [“The Language of Prayer,” 17]

However, this is not a valid excuse for not learning prayer’s divine language.

President Joseph Fielding Smith was clear when he said:

The Father and the Son should always be honored in our prayers with the utmost humility and reverence. . . .

. . . The changing of the wording of the Bible to meet the popular language of our day, has, in the opinion of the writer and his brethren, been a great loss in the building of faith and spirituality in the minds and hearts of the people. [ Answers to Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1958), 2:15, 17]

Our Church leaders produced a special issue of the Ensign in January of 1976 that was dedicated to prayer (see Don E. Norton, “The Language of Formal Prayer,” Ensign, January 1976, 44–47). It affords us tools that instruct us in the use of formal prayer language, and I encourage each of you to study its contents.

As parents, part of our stewardship is to teach our children to pray (see D&C 68:28). “We should give our children the privilege of learning this language by listening to their parents use it in the various prayers offered daily in our homes” (Dallin H. Oaks, “The Language of Prayer,” 18).

4. Avoid Vain Repetitions

Being attentive to what we say in our prayers and testimonies is necessary to avoid the use of vain repetitions. We then are better able to carefully consider and construct the thoughts we wish to communicate (see Matthew 6:7 and 3 Nephi 13:7).

One common misuse of language among some members of the Church today often occurs as they conclude a testimony, talk, or sermon. Unthinkingly, people sometimes close by saying, “I testify of these things in the name of Thy Son.” But the group being spoken to is still the congregation. This common mistake is probably due to the fact that members of the Church regularly use this phrase in their personal prayers when speaking directly to our Father in Heaven. In that case it is very appropriate. However, it is not correct usage when speaking or testifying to others. In a testimony or talk we should close with such phrases as “in the name of our Savior,” “in the name of the Son,” or, simply, “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

The important principle here is that we become more attentive to and selective of the words we employ and not allow ourselves to use vain repetitions when speaking of deity in our testimonies and prayers.

5. Become Sensitive to the Whens and Wheres of Proper Behavior

The temple, our chapels, and our homes are sacred sanctuaries. We should treat them as such. In the Bible Dictionary we learn:

A temple is literally a house of the Lord, a holy sanctuary. . . . A place where the Lord may come, it is the most holy of any place of worship on the earth. Only the home can compare with the temple in sacredness. [Bible Dictionary, s.v. “temple,” 780–81]

President Marion G. Romney wrote:

Our reverence for [the Lord] increases as our love for him grows.

. . . When one recognizes the house in which he is meeting as the dwelling place of the Lord, whom he loves with all his heart, then it is not difficult for him to have reverence for it. [Marion G. Romney, “Reverence,” Ensign, September 1982, 3–4]

In speaking of our sacrament services, Joseph Fielding Smith said:

I think this is an occasion when the gospel should be presented, when we should be called upon to exercise faith, and to reflect on the mission of our Redeemer, and to spend time in the consideration of the saving principles of the gospel, and not for other purposes. Amusement, laughter, light-mindedness, are all out of place in the sacrament meetings of the Latter-day Saints. We should assemble in the spirit of prayer, of meekness, with devotion in our hearts. I know of no other place where we can gather where we should be more reflective and solemn and where more of the spirit of worship should be maintained. [Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 2:342]

President Gordon B. Hinckley observed:

Socializing is an important aspect of our program as a Church. We encourage the cultivation of friends with happy conversations among our people. However, these should take place in the foyer, and when we enter the chapel we should understand that we are in sacred precincts. . . .

We do not ask our people to remove their shoes when they come into the chapel. But all who come into the Lord’s house should have a feeling that they are walking and standing on holy ground and that it becomes them to deport themselves accordingly. [Gordon B. Hinckley, “Reverence and Morality,” Ensign, May 1987, 45–46]

Often we just need to remind ourselves of where we are and why we are there.

Members of BYU’s The Dancers Company, Living Legends, Young Ambassadors, and the International Folk Dance Ensemble had the privilege of performing in the Church’s production of Light of the World during the recent Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympic Games. One evening at the conclusion of a special preview for a majority of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, members of the cast awaited with anticipation as the apostles approached the stage. No one instructed even the youngest members of the cast as to how they should act in the presence of these holy men. No one had to. Everyone quickly and quietly sat down. Not a word was spoken. The feelings of the Spirit were very strong and unmistakable. Love, admiration, and respect for these special witnesses of Christ filled the air. All attention was focused on Elder Packer as he addressed us. There was total concentration. No one wanted it to come to an end. When these Brethren finally did leave, the Spirit remained with us. Our behavior had changed in their presence.

I believe that if we will approach all our meetings with a desire to become one with the Holy Spirit, our feelings of the Spirit will dictate our actions, and without prior thought or instruction we will act and speak accordingly. We do change in the presence of deity.

Blessings Await Us

Finally, in a prayer offered at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, the Prophet Joseph Smith referred to blessings that are “ordained to be poured out upon those who shall reverence thee in thy house” (D&C 109:21). Each one of us may be recipients of those blessings that are waiting to be poured out upon those who sincerely emulate the qualities of our Elder Brother. His actions and words define the deep respect He has for His Father. May we also learn to glorify our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ through deeds and words that are pure and undefiled.

Our Heavenly Father lives. Jesus is the Christ, and He has atoned for our sins. President Gordon B. Hinckley is a true prophet, seer, and revelator appointed to lead Christ’s restored church today. We all can be partakers of the fullness of His gospel and its blessings if we will reverently continue in faith and choose to live such that the Holy Ghost will be our constant companion. Of this I testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Edwin G. Austin Jr. was artistic director of the BYU International Folk Dance Ensemble when this devotional address was given on 21 May 2002.

Related Speeches

Words to Live By

A Sense of the Sacred

How To Show Respect For Others (+ Why It’s Important In Life)

Disclosure: this page may contain affiliate links to select partners. We receive a commission should you choose to make a purchase after clicking on them. Read our affiliate disclosure.

young woman showing respect to older woman

It would be difficult to hear the word “respect,” or see an article about respect, and not think of the Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin, who sadly left us recently at age 76.

Aretha had an extraordinary career, winning 18 Grammy Awards and selling more than 75 million records worldwide.

Of course, her signature song was entitled, “Respect.” And the most familiar phrase of the song is:

R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me

If there’s only one thing we take from this song, it is that respect is important. But what is respect, exactly?

Let’s explore this a bit more, shall we?

How Do We Show Respect For Others?

So how do we show respect for others? What does respect look like? How do we know it when we see it? How do we recognize when it’s absent?

Well, there isn’t space to mention all of them or even most of them, but here are 6 ways to show respect for you to consider and hopefully put into practice.

Listening to what another person has to say is a basic way to respect them. Everyone wants to have their say. Everyone wants to feel that they’re being listened to . Whether they have something profound to say is not the point. People want to be heard… period.

When you give another person your time and your focus and your ear, you validate them. Which conveys respect.

The provision of human rights begins when those who have not listened to a particular segment of society begin to listen. All social change begins with dialogue. Civil dialogue.

Until you listen to another person’s concerns, you will not know who they are and what’s important to them. Respect begins with listening .

When we affirm someone, we’re giving evidence that they matter. That they have value. That they’re important. And that they’re worthy of respect.

Simply affirming someone virtually guarantees that you respect them. To affirm someone, you just have to notice something positive about that person and verbalize this observation.

“You’ve shown great determination over the past 2 years to get your business off the ground.”

“You were incredibly patient and understanding when dealing with that difficult situation.”

“You make me smile every time I see you.”

You may not respect every aspect of who they are and what they do, but you can give them appropriate respect at the level that affirms them. Affirmation is a key way of showing respect to others.

English-American poet W.H. Auden once said that, “We are all here on earth to help others ; what on earth the others are here for I don’t know.”

Life on earth is about serving others. In fact, our professions, our careers, and our jobs should revolve around a desire to serve others. To give back to others. To use our talents and abilities to make life better for others.

Serving shows that we care. And caring shows that we respect. Serving is an important element in showing respect.

Though kindness and service are first cousins, they aren’t identical. We can serve without being kind. But it’s very difficult to be kind without serving.

When we’re kind to someone, we’re giving of ourselves. We’re giving something they can use. Maybe something they need. Maybe something they need desperately.

Kindness is an expression of respect. Respect for the fact that someone else is simply in need. We have all been in need. And what a relief it was when someone showed us kindness. Kindness is a tangible way of showing respect.

5. Be Polite

It’s appalling to witness the decline of politeness in the modern world. Whether it’s on the highway, at the grocery store, in the parking lot, on the athletic field, on Facebook, or in political rhetoric – polite discourse and interaction is rapidly becoming a lost art.

Yet, it’s so easy to be polite. And it’s so inexpensive too. An act of politeness can literally change a person’s day. It can even change a person’s life.

It can lift their spirits instantly. It can help them press on through what may be difficult. Some cultures in the world are known for their politeness. Other cultures are known for their rudeness.

Which communicates respect and which doesn’t? If you want to show respect for someone, start by being polite.

6. Be Thankful

If William James was right, that human beings crave appreciation, then thankfulness is the way we affirm it.

When someone does something for you that’s beneficial. Or they say something to you that’s helpful in some way. Or they honestly affirm you in some way that’s important to you. You should thank them .

Again, thankfulness is becoming increasingly rare in our world.

I hold the door for people, and they walk right past without even seeming to notice. I let people out into my lane of traffic so they’ll save time. They look at me as if it’s their solemn birthright. I help people in other ways that I’m certain was valuable to them. Yet I hear nothing in the way of thanks.

It’s not so much that we need to be thanked. It’s that we want to feel that what we’ve done has made a difference. When there is no thankfulness for something we’ve done, or even for who we are, we feel a lack of respect.

Respect doesn’t always require thankfulness. But it often does. It’s just another way we show respect. It’s just another way that we feel respected.

Why Respect Is Important In Life

What’s so great about respect anyway? Why does it matter in the grand scheme of things?

1. Showing respect is the right response in a civil society.

One of the characteristics of a civil society is the showing of respect to fellow citizens. The conviction that other members of a family, a town, a city, a nation, or a region of the world are worthy of respect.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris in 1948. Its goal was to grant status worthy of respect to all human beings everywhere. No human being is exempt.

Showing respect for human life and human beings is fundamental to a civil society and civil world.

2. Respect affirms those worthy of respect.

When we respect others, it affirms their right to respect and their worthiness of respect. On the other hand, when we withhold respect from others, we imply they are unworthy of it.

This can trigger a decline that is exceedingly difficult to arrest and end. Once it is generally believed that a certain race or ethnic group or nationality or skin color or gender or age is unworthy of respect, the flood gates open for abuse.

We’ve seen this many times in the past two centuries in particular. The natural and logical outcome of the removal of respect from particular classes is first rejection, then discrimination, then abuse, and ultimately genocide.

It starts with a lack of respect. It’s another reason why respect should be common among all peoples everywhere, and why respect is so important.

3. It encourages behavior that’s respectful.

When someone is living in a way that brings them recognition, honor, and respect, it encourages their living that way. Not always, but usually. Behavior that’s rewarded tends to be repeated.

Or, put another way, “What’s rewarded gets done.”

Whether we wish that behavior worthy of respect would be common without encouragement misses the point. It’s simply human nature to do what gets rewarded and shy away from what doesn’t.

4. It provides a solid foundation for relationships.

There should be serious reluctance to maintain a relationship that does not offer respect. People don’t like to be treated badly. People don’t like to be demeaned, devalued, dishonored, and disrespected.

If a relationship lacks respect, it is almost certainly an unhealthy one. Toxic relationships nearly always have a lack of respect as a common element.

Meaningful, healthy, and mutually-beneficial relationships show mutual respect. It’s fundamental.

5. Without respect we lose heart.

Respect is so basic to human well-being that in its absence, people don’t thrive. They don’t need to have respect from everyone – but there are certain people from whom respect is virtually mandatory.

The father of modern psychiatry, William James said, “The deepest principle in human nature is the craving to be appreciated.” Those who are not appreciated do not feel respected. It’s disheartening.

The history of the struggle for civil rights throughout the world is the struggle to win respect from others. The American Founding Fathers expressed it in the United States Declaration of Independence this way:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Respect for human beings entails the granting, preserving, and protection of these rights. Without respect, these rights will be missing. And if these rights are missing, respect will be missing too. They exist together.

So, we’ve seen what respect is. We’ve seen how to show respect in practical ways. And we’ve seen why respect is important.

Hopefully we not only see that respect is an important aspect of life, but we see why it’s important to show it consistently. Everyone is due respect by virtue of being a human being.

Everyone wants respect. Everyone should show respect. So hopefully everyone will receive the respect they’re due, and they’ll grant the respect due others.

About The Author

I was born and raised in northern Virginia near Washington, D.C. My dream as a child was to play professional baseball. I made it as far as a baseball scholarship to a Division 1 college. I’m a teacher at heart, and love to teach anything and anybody who wants to learn. I started out as a public school teacher. But within a few years, felt called to the ministry, where I spent 32 years as a pastor. I love the outdoors. I love to read. I love people. I love to learn. I try to take a long walk every day year-round. I’ve done that for more than 40 years. It’s where I do some of my best thinking. It also clears the cobwebs from my head and the nonsense that tries to take root there. My blog is Quotation Celebration , where I discuss the meaning and lessons contained within great quotes.

Home » Blog » General » Understanding the Importance of Respect: A Simple Guide to Delivering an Easy Speech

Understanding the Importance of Respect: A Simple Guide to Delivering an Easy Speech

Welcome to my blog! Today, we are going to explore the concept of respect and its significance in social emotional learning. Respect is a fundamental value that plays a crucial role in our interactions with others. It promotes positive relationships, empathy, and understanding. In this blog post, I will provide you with a simple guide on how to deliver an easy speech on respect.

Understanding Respect

Respect is a multifaceted concept that encompasses various aspects of our lives. It involves treating oneself and others with dignity, kindness, and consideration. When we practice respect, we acknowledge the worth and value of individuals, their opinions, and their boundaries. Respect is the foundation of healthy relationships and fosters a positive social environment.

Self-respect is the first step towards respecting others. It involves recognizing our own worth, setting boundaries, and taking care of our physical and emotional well-being. By cultivating self-respect, we develop a strong sense of self and are better equipped to treat others with respect.

Respect for others involves recognizing their individuality, beliefs, and perspectives. It means listening attentively, valuing their opinions, and refraining from judgment. When we respect others, we create an inclusive and supportive environment where everyone feels valued and heard.

Practicing respect in our daily lives has numerous benefits. It enhances our relationships, promotes effective communication, and fosters a sense of belonging. Respect also contributes to our personal growth and helps us develop empathy, tolerance, and understanding.

The Power of Words

Words have immense power in conveying respect. Using positive and respectful language is essential in promoting healthy and meaningful interactions. When delivering a speech on respect, it is crucial to choose words that uplift, inspire, and encourage understanding.

Here are some tips for using positive and respectful language:

Use words that show appreciation and gratitude.
Avoid derogatory or offensive language.
Speak clearly and concisely to ensure your message is understood.
Be mindful of the tone of your voice, ensuring it is respectful and considerate.

Active listening and empathy are also vital components of respectful communication. When engaging in a conversation, give your full attention to the speaker, maintain eye contact, and demonstrate genuine interest. Empathize with their experiences and validate their emotions. By actively listening and showing empathy, you create a safe space for open and respectful dialogue.

Non-Verbal Communication

Non-verbal cues play a significant role in demonstrating respect. Our body language and facial expressions can convey respect or disrespect, even without saying a word. To ensure your speech on respect is effective, pay attention to your non-verbal communication.

Here are some tips for using non-verbal cues to convey respect:

Maintain eye contact with your audience to show attentiveness and interest.
Use open and welcoming body language, such as uncrossed arms and a relaxed posture.
Smile genuinely to create a warm and inviting atmosphere.
Use appropriate gestures to emphasize key points and engage your audience.

By being mindful of your non-verbal communication, you can enhance the impact of your speech on respect and create a positive impression on your audience.

Cultural Sensitivity

Cultural sensitivity is an essential aspect of respecting diversity. In a globalized world, it is crucial to understand and appreciate different cultural norms, values, and traditions. By embracing cultural diversity, we promote inclusivity and create an environment where everyone feels valued and respected.

Here are some tips for practicing cultural sensitivity in your speech:

Research and educate yourself about different cultures to avoid stereotypes and misconceptions.
Respect cultural practices and customs, even if they differ from your own.
Avoid making assumptions or generalizations about individuals based on their cultural background.
Use inclusive language that respects and acknowledges diverse perspectives.

By incorporating cultural sensitivity into your speech, you demonstrate respect for all individuals, regardless of their cultural background.

Delivering an Easy Speech on Respect

Now that we have explored the various aspects of respect, let’s discuss how to deliver an easy speech on this topic.

1. Start with a captivating introduction to grab the audience’s attention. You can begin with a thought-provoking quote, an interesting fact, or a personal anecdote related to respect.

2. Clearly state the purpose of your speech and its relevance to the audience. Explain why respect is an important value to practice in daily life and how it can positively impact relationships and social interactions.

3. Use personal anecdotes or relatable examples to illustrate the importance of respect. Sharing real-life stories can help your audience connect with the topic on a deeper level and understand its significance.

4. Provide practical tips and strategies for practicing respect in daily life. Offer actionable steps that your audience can implement immediately to cultivate respect in their interactions with others.

5. Summarize the key points discussed in your speech and conclude with a call to action. Encourage your audience to incorporate respect into their daily interactions and emphasize the positive impact it can have on their relationships and overall well-being.

Respect is a fundamental value that plays a vital role in social emotional learning. By understanding and practicing respect, we can create a more inclusive and harmonious society. Delivering an easy speech on respect allows us to spread awareness and inspire others to embrace this value in their daily lives.

Remember, respect begins with ourselves and extends to others. By using positive language, demonstrating active listening, being mindful of non-verbal cues, and practicing cultural sensitivity, we can foster an environment of respect and understanding.

Start your journey towards delivering an easy speech on respect by signing up for a free trial with EverydaySpeech. Their comprehensive resources and materials will provide you with the tools you need to effectively communicate the importance of respect. Start your EverydaySpeech free trial here .

Preparing for Success: Enhancing Social Communication in Grade 12

Preparing for Success: Enhancing Social Communication in Grade 12 Key Takeaways Strong social communication skills are crucial for academic success and building meaningful relationships in Grade 12. Social communication includes verbal and non-verbal communication,...

Preparing for Success: Enhancing Social Communication in Grade 12 Preparing for Success: Enhancing Social Communication in Grade 12 As students enter Grade 12, they are on the cusp of adulthood and preparing for the next chapter of their lives. While academic success...

FREE MATERIALS

Better doesn’t have to be harder, social skills lessons students actually enjoy.

Be the best educator you can be with no extra prep time needed. Sign up to get access to free samples from the best Social Skills and Social-Emotional educational platform.

Get Started Instantly for Free

Complete guided therapy.

The subscription associated with this email has been cancelled and is no longer active. To reactivate your subscription, please log in.

If you would like to make changes to your account, please log in using the button below and navigate to the settings page. If you’ve forgotten your password, you can reset it using the button below.

Unfortunately it looks like we’re not able to create your subscription at this time. Please contact support to have the issue resolved. We apologize for the inconvenience. Error: Web signup - customer email already exists

Welcome back! The subscription associated with this email was previously cancelled, but don’t fret! We make it easy to reactivate your subscription and pick up right where you left off. Note that subscription reactivations aren't eligible for free trials, but your purchase is protected by a 30 day money back guarantee. Let us know anytime within 30 days if you aren’t satisfied and we'll send you a full refund, no questions asked. Please press ‘Continue’ to enter your payment details and reactivate your subscription

Notice About Our SEL Curriculum

Our SEL Curriculum is currently in a soft product launch stage and is only available by Site License. A Site License is currently defined as a school-building minimum or a minimum cost of $3,000 for the first year of use. Individual SEL Curriculum licenses are not currently available based on the current version of this product.

By clicking continue below, you understand that access to our SEL curriculum is currently limited to the terms above.

Speech on Respect

Good morning/afternoon everyone,

Today, I’m here to talk to you about one of the most important virtues that we need to follow in our lives – Respect. Respect is something that is fundamental to human relationships and interactions.

Respect can be defined as a feeling of admiration, honor or appreciation for someone or something. It can be towards a person, an idea, a culture, or even towards nature. Respecting someone means valuing them for who they are, understanding their worth and treating them with dignity.

Now, let’s talk about the importance of respect. Respect is like a glue that holds all relationships together. It helps to build trust, establish communication and maintain harmony. Respecting each other’s individuality and differences is the first step towards building healthy relationships.

Respecting others helps to create a positive environment in our homes, schools, workplaces and society. It promotes teamwork, cooperation, and understanding. When we respect each other, there is less conflict, less misunderstanding, and more love and happiness.

Moreover, respecting someone also means respecting their rights, opinions and beliefs. It means acknowledging their contribution and considering their ideas. It doesn’t mean we have to agree with everything they say or do, but it means we listen to them with an open mind and without any prejudice.

But, respect should not be limited to people or ideas. It should also extend to our surroundings, our environment and our planet. We need to respect and preserve our natural resources such as air, water, land, and forests. We need to respect the other living beings on this planet and treat them with care and kindness.

Respect also means respecting ourselves. Often, we tend to disrespect ourselves by indulging in negative self-talk, neglecting our physical and mental health, and compromising our values and principles. We need to understand that self-respect is equally important as respecting others.

Therefore, my dear friends, it’s imperative that we cultivate a culture of respect in our daily lives. And the best way to do that is by leading by example. We should be the role models that our children, our family and our friends can look up to. We should show respect to everyone we meet, regardless of their age, gender, profession, language or race.

In conclusion, I would like to say that respect is the key to a happy and fulfilling life. It brings people together and helps to build a better world. Let’s make respect a part of our everyday life and see the difference it makes.

Thank you all for listening to me.

Speech About Values [1-3 Minutes]

Values are positive good qualities present in an individual or company. These values are responsible for each action performed by an individual. They also help others to figure out the nature of a person or a group of people living together or working together.

Core values represent an individual’s or organisation’s priorities. In this article, we shared some examples of speech about values having a time duration of 1, 2 and 3 minutes. This will help you prepare for a speech presentation.

1 Minute Speech about Values

Good morning and welcome all of you gathered here. I am here to present a speech on values and their importance.

The real value of a person is determined by the values imbibed in him. These are sometimes called core values. Core values are profound essential values that are grounds for who we are as a person. They tell us what we really believe about ourselves.

Core values decide the behaviour, the thinking pattern, and the actions that someone will execute. The same applies to an organisation. If we talk about some of these values. They can be; confidence , humbleness, doing the right things, accountability, helping first, integrity, sharing etc.

In short, Values are important that drive an individual or a business to behave ethically. Thank you!

2-Minute Speech About Values

Welcome honourable principal, respected teacher, loved parents and dear friends. Today, we are gathered here for this special occasion of… I am here to speak a few words about the importance of values.

Values or sometimes called core values or moral values are the invention of humans. These values distinguish humans from animals. These values are important for an individual, a society, an organisation, a business and a country because values have the purpose of driving you to act and behave ethically.

Your values indicate what is important to you and what are your priorities. If you have good values, everyone will like you and you will develop a mutual emotional connection with others. This way you will behave very well with others. Hence, values shape your personality and behaviour .

The values inside you help you make the right decision. They help you distinguish between right and wrong. When you make the right decisions, you prosper on the path of progress. This improves your confidence. Therefore, we can say that values help you grow.

Values can build character. Good values can help you build a strong character and bad values can help you build a loose character. Now, a question arises in the mind; what are good values? There are a lot of values considered as good.

Some of these can be compassion, loyalty, discipline, accountability, confidence, gratitude, sharing, caring, and doing the right things. There is a quote that can help you understand the importance of values in a few words.

Treat people the way you want yourself to be treated. Talk to the people the way you want yourself to be talked to. Respect is earned, not given.

To sum it up, your values can decide the experiences you are going to encounter. So, imbibe good values in you and enjoy the world. Thank you!

3 Minute Speech On The Importance Of values

First of all, good morning to the honourable principal, respected teachers and loving friends and all of you present here today. In your special presence, I would like to say a few words about core values.

We develop a wonderful connection with some people while we fail to do the same with others. This is because of the values they imbibe in them. If we find a person with the same interest and values as us, we like them and vice versa.

Let’s talk about some good values that an individual must have.

1. Kindness

Kindness is the best value of all. Every living being understands the language of kindness. Kind nature can calm even the most ferocious animal. Being kind often requires courage and strength, as it involves the willingness to celebrate and give attention to someone else.

“ Honesty is the best policy “. You must have listened to this line one day or another. It is one of the most basic core values. Honesty is the equilibrium of what we say and what we do. It also encourages one to always tell the truth and avoid cheating.

3. Doing the Right Thing

Doing the right is a tough commitment because it will please some people and fury others. But wait… Give it a think before doing anything if this act is actually right. Here right means which is right for all, not for one perspective. Hence, doing the right thing requires a great deal of wisdom.

Apart from these, there are many values we can count such as;

Spirituality
Selflessness
Determination
Trustworthiness
Appreciation
Self-Reliance
Attentiveness

To sum it up, in order to prosper in each aspect of life, one needs to incorporate good values.

Thank you very much for listening to my speech. I hope you liked it.

Other Speeches

Importance of time management speech [1,2,3 minutes], speech on ethics and etiquette [1,2,3 minutes], speech about mahatma gandhi jayanti 2023.

1 Minute Speech On Health Is Wealth
2 Minute Speech On Child Labour
1 Minute Speech On Child Labour
Speech On Nature [ 1-2 minutes ]
2 Minute Speech on Importance Of Education
1 Minute Speech on Pollution
2 Minute Speech on Population Explosion

Respect: Examples and How to Learn or Teach It

Respect. Learn what it is, why it is important, as well as different types and examples. Discover interesting tips on how to teach it. What to do when we are disrespected? How do you learn to respect yourself? How to respect others? In this article, we answer all these questions.

What is respect? Concept and definition

The word respect comes from the Latin word “ respectus ” meaning attention, regard, or consideration.

It can be defined as “ esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability “.

This is a very important component of both personal identity and interpersonal relationships. To feel respected could be considered a basic human right. Disrespect is a very important thing that can lead to break-ups and even violence.

The concept also refers to the ability to value and honor another person, even if we do not approve or share everything he or she does. It is accepting the other person and not trying to change them.

Our differences are positive because it creates our identity. This means that individual differences exist, but above all to understand that as members of society, we are equal. All people are due respect for the simple fact of being people. Equality is in balance. But it’s also fundamental for oneself since you will value others to the extent that you are able to value yourself.

That is why it is very important to teach children from an early age the value of it. And, the best way to teach respect is to become a role model for our children.

Why Is Respect Important?

Without it, interpersonal relationships will be filled with conflict and dissatisfaction. If we don’t respect others, they will not respect us, and if we don’t respect ourselves we will not be respected by others either.

It is essential to feel safe, to be able to express ourselves without fear of being judged, humiliated or discriminated against.

Being respectful of others, being respected, and respecting ourselves increases our self-esteem , self-efficacy , mental health, and well-being.

Types of Respect

There are many types, the most important of which are: self-respect, for others, social norms, nature, values, laws, culture, and the family.

Some examples of consideration in everyday life are: greeting or speaking to others in a kind and respectful way, giving up your seat in public places, treating others as you would like them to treat you, etc.

For self: This kind refers to the ability to respect oneself, to value and appreciate oneself. Accepting oneself regardless of what others think. Ensure you are at peak health with this magnesium breakthrough .
For others: This kind refers to the act of tolerating accepting and considering another person, even though there may be differences between them or the way they think. Some examples would be; respect for parents, men and women equally, teachers, older people, other’s religious beliefs, respect for people of different sexual orientations , etc.
Social norms: This kind refers to the ability to respect all the norms that govern society. Some examples of this type of respect would be: respect for courtesy rules, working hours, other people’s belongings, letting them speak and listen, and respecting others’ opinions.
For nature: This kind refers to the appreciation of the environment (animals, plants, rivers, etc.). Some examples of this type of respect would be; not throwing garbage in rivers, forests, or fields, not tearing up plants or mistreating nature, not wasting water, not harming animals or insects, recycling, using environmentally friendly means of transport, etc.
The family: This kind implies being able to understand and respect each other within the family, and implies being able to follow a set of rules of coexistence.
For values: This kind refers to the ability to honor our own principles.
Culture: This type of value refers to the ability to recognize that there are other beliefs and be able to respect them. Some examples of this kind of respect would be: not trying to impose our beliefs on others, avoiding making judgments about the opinions of others, etc.
N ational symbols: This kind refers to the ability to value and appreciate the symbols of a nation. For example, the anthem or a flag.
For human beings: This type refers to the ability to comply with legal norms, respect laws, etc.

How to Teach Respect?

This attribute is a two-way street.

Hal and Yates studied respect through words and found out that between parents and children and teachers and students respect is the main aspect of the relationship between them.

These authors learned that it’s about reciprocity. Meaning, we get back what we receive. Therefore if parents respect their children, they will receive the same respect back. The important aspect of this study was that parents and teachers were the ones responsible for teaching respect.

You can start teaching respect to children, maybe this song and tips might help:

1. Respect your children

Take into account your child’s tastes and preferences. Don’t make him do something he doesn’t want, just like you wouldn’t make an adult do it. Suggest, encourage, advise, but don’t force. If your child has their own way of doing things, let your child do it. Don’t pretend to have complete control over your child’s behavior or preferences. Accept their decisions and let them make their own decisions as well.

When we accept children’s differences, they feel listened to and respected. They learn in their own flesh how to treat others who have different opinions and to respect others despite their differences.

2. Stay calm and don’t shout

If you want to teach respect, it is important to set an example and always keep a calm tone. Shouting at a person is disrespectful, too. Although it can be difficult when you feel frustrated, try not to shout.

3. Don’t use negative labels or insults

Telling our child, “you’re a bad boy” or “you’re useless” is very harmful to self-esteem, but it also encourages a disrespectful attitude. So, when he/she behaves badly, it is better to say: “What you have done is wrong”, focusing on his action by not judging the child”. Discover the power of Pygmalion effect . Prophecies come true.

4. Understand why he/she disrespected you

When your child is disrespectful, it’s best to understand why he or she has done it and help them explore their feelings. For example, if your child calls you “bad,” we’ll ask why he or she said it, whether it’s because they’re angry or sad.

We need to think about what might have upset him, and say, “Are you angry about this?” We must be empathic to their anger and make them understand that not because of that anger a person is bad and that hurting others is not a way to solve problems. Once they understand this, we can negotiate with them on how to solve their anger.

5. Don’t let them disrespect you

Don’t let your children or anyone else disrespect you. Be a good role model for them, not letting anyone take advantage of you or accepting yourself.

Portraying respect goes hand in hand with self-esteem. The higher the self-esteem the lower the possibilities you will accept disrespect. Remember that humans strive to achieve respect but we have to focus on providing ourselves with the respect we deserve.

6. Set limits

When teaching respect, it is important to set limits on what is right and wrong for children. When they behave disrespectfully, point out the behavior, calmly, without shouting, as we have mentioned before. However, if there is a lot of emotional activation, if the child is very upset, it is better to wait for him to calm down, or even help him to do so.

7. Apologize when you’re wrong

When you’re wrong, you don’t keep your promise or you’re too hard on your child, it’s important to apologize to them. Not only will we convey humility and the importance of asking for forgiveness, but we will also teach them respect.

8. Congratulate your children when they are respectful

It is important for them to learn the actions that are right and respectful. Let them know that what they have done is right because then they are more likely to repeat it.

Respect in the workplace

Globalization has made most of our workplaces have diverse people, from different races, religions, etc. This is very important because having a diverse workplace helps boost productivity. However, what is most important in a diverse workplace is to maintain respect among coworkers to reduce job stress .

To keep respect at the workplace it is important to be polite with each other, don’t judge people, control your anger, inspire others, etc. Practicing humility, respecting other people’s time, and trying to be empathic are important variables in the workplace.

Learn to respect yourself

Sometimes it’s hard to get others to respect us if we don’t do it ourselves.

1. Treat others the way you want to be treated

It’s a pretty cliché phrase, but it’s true. If you want to be respected, start by respecting others. People tend to be reciprocal.

2. Respect yourself

If others see that you have this, they will also consider and appreciate you and your needs. Consider yourself a priority.

3. Use body language

Body language is very important because it helps to transmit a lot of information. Although many times the information we send with the body is contradictory to our words. Therefore, if we give our opinion but with a faint voice, it is more likely that no one will take into account what we are saying. But on the contrary, if we express what we think in a firm voice, looking into the other’s eyes and confident in ourselves, they are more likely to respect us. Discover here tips for effective communication skills .

4. Speak positively

Even if you do not behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, do not underestimate yourself, or play down.

5. Surround yourself with the right people

Some people are just always disrespectful and no matter what we do they will always disrespect others. These people we should keep further away from us as possible. If you can’t keep them away then learn to ignore their comments.

6. Defend yourself against disrespect

If they disrespect you or don’t take you seriously, defend yourself. Don’t allow it. Don’t attack or respond in the same way either. With a “What you said has hurt me”, “That comment was inappropriate” or “I won’t allow you to speak to me like that”, these phrases will help for this behavior not to repeat again.

7. Boost your self-esteem

Many times we are not respected because we don’t consider ourselves worthy of it. This may be conscious or unconscious. Even if we rationally know that we do deserve respect, sometimes unconsciously we don’t end up believing it. That is why it’s important to work on your self-esteem.

8. Develop assertiveness

Assertiveness is a way of defending our rights while respecting those of others. By being assertive, we will avoid others taking advantage of us, besides increasing our self-esteem. To do this, it is important to learn to say no when something doesn’t feel right or doesn’t suit you.

What to Do with a Lack of Respect?

Do you feel that others don’t respect you and take advantage of you? Here are a few tips to help you overcome disrespect.

Value your educational trajectory or other forms of education that you have had. If you are not fortunate enough to have a formal education, value your life experience and life skills.
Honor your body and listen to it. Take care of it without forcing it, do physical exercise, and eat properly.
Listen to yourself and attend to your needs, whether they are a need for rest, disconnection, or fun.
Learn to communicate assertively, as mentioned above.
Stay away from people who don’t do you any good and from toxic relationships.
Find out what your goals and objectives are in life and work to achieve them.

How do we respect others?

Listening to the other person.
Being empathetic , understanding each other, and putting ourselves in their shoes.
Using assertive communication, that is, defending our rights while respecting the rights of others, in an educated and non-aggressive manner.
Keep in mind that our approaches, ideas, and opinions may differ from other people and none is wrong. No one has the absolute truth.
Apologize to each other when we make mistakes.
Keeping other people’s secrets.
Complying with and respecting laws and regulations
Taking care of the common spaces and the environment.
Interest in others, their everyday life, and how they feel.
Respecting the privacy and intimacy of others.
Respecting others’ spaces and belongings, not invade or use what is not ours without permission.
Respect personal space.
Make sure we include rather than exclude others.
Helping others when it is in our power to do so.
Being grateful.
Category: Wellness
Tag: anxiety , respect , Self-esteem

Overcoming Anxiety At Work: Steps to Promote Wellness Towards Successful Career

6 Strategies to Enhance and Maintain Your Mental Well-Being

Pin It on Pinterest

Share this post with your friends!

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Freedom of Speech

[ Editor’s Note: The following new entry by Jeffrey W. Howard replaces the former entry on this topic by the previous author. ]

Human beings have significant interests in communicating what they think to others, and in listening to what others have to say. These interests make it difficult to justify coercive restrictions on people’s communications, plausibly grounding a moral right to speak (and listen) to others that is properly protected by law. That there ought to be such legal protections for speech is uncontroversial among political and legal philosophers. But disagreement arises when we turn to the details. What are the interests or values that justify this presumption against restricting speech? And what, if anything, counts as an adequate justification for overcoming the presumption? This entry is chiefly concerned with exploring the philosophical literature on these questions.

The entry begins by distinguishing different ideas to which the term “freedom of speech” can refer. It then reviews the variety of concerns taken to justify freedom of speech. Next, the entry considers the proper limits of freedom of speech, cataloging different views on when and why restrictions on communication can be morally justified, and what considerations are relevant when evaluating restrictions. Finally, it considers the role of speech intermediaries in a philosophical analysis of freedom of speech, with special attention to internet platforms.

1. What is Freedom of Speech?

2.1 listener theories, 2.2 speaker theories, 2.3 democracy theories, 2.4 thinker theories, 2.5 toleration theories, 2.6 instrumental theories: political abuse and slippery slopes, 2.7 free speech skepticism, 3.1 absoluteness, coverage, and protection, 3.2 the limits of free speech: external constraints, 3.3 the limits of free speech: internal constraints, 3.4 proportionality: chilling effects and political abuse, 3.5 necessity: the counter-speech alternative, 4. the future of free speech theory: platform ethics, other internet resources, related entries.

In the philosophical literature, the terms “freedom of speech”, “free speech”, “freedom of expression”, and “freedom of communication” are mostly used equivalently. This entry will follow that convention, notwithstanding the fact that these formulations evoke subtly different phenomena. For example, it is widely understood that artistic expressions, such as dancing and painting, fall within the ambit of this freedom, even though they don’t straightforwardly seem to qualify as speech , which intuitively connotes some kind of linguistic utterance (see Tushnet, Chen, & Blocher 2017 for discussion). Still, they plainly qualify as communicative activity, conveying some kind of message, however vague or open to interpretation it may be.

Yet the extension of “free speech” is not fruitfully specified through conceptual analysis alone. The quest to distinguish speech from conduct, for the purpose of excluding the latter from protection, is notoriously thorny (Fish 1994: 106), despite some notable attempts (such as Greenawalt 1989: 58ff). As John Hart Ely writes concerning Vietnam War protesters who incinerated their draft cards, such activity is “100% action and 100% expression” (1975: 1495). It is only once we understand why we should care about free speech in the first place—the values it instantiates or serves—that we can evaluate whether a law banning the burning of draft cards (or whatever else) violates free speech. It is the task of a normative conception of free speech to offer an account of the values at stake, which in turn can illuminate the kinds of activities wherein those values are realized, and the kinds of restrictions that manifest hostility to those values. For example, if free speech is justified by the value of respecting citizens’ prerogative to hear many points of view and to make up their own minds, then banning the burning of draft cards to limit the views to which citizens will be exposed is manifestly incompatible with that purpose. If, in contrast, such activity is banned as part of a generally applied ordinance restricting fires in public, it would likely raise no free-speech concerns. (For a recent analysis of this issue, see Kramer 2021: 25ff).

Accordingly, the next section discusses different conceptions of free speech that arise in the philosophical literature, each oriented to some underlying moral or political value. Before turning to the discussion of those conceptions, some further preliminary distinctions will be useful.

First, we can distinguish between the morality of free speech and the law of free speech. In political philosophy, one standard approach is to theorize free speech as a requirement of morality, tracing the implications of such a theory for law and policy. Note that while this is the order of justification, it need not be the order of investigation; it is perfectly sensible to begin by studying an existing legal protection for speech (such as the First Amendment in the U.S.) and then asking what could justify such a protection (or something like it).

But of course morality and law can diverge. The most obvious way they can diverge is when the law is unjust. Existing legal protections for speech, embodied in the positive law of particular jurisdictions, may be misguided in various ways. In other words, a justified legal right to free speech, and the actual legal right to free speech in the positive law of a particular jurisdiction, can come apart. In some cases, positive legal rights might protect too little speech. For example, some jurisdictions’ speech laws make exceptions for blasphemy, such that criminalizing blasphemy does not breach the legal right to free speech within that legal system. But clearly one could argue that a justified legal right to free speech would not include any such exception. In other cases, positive legal rights might perhaps protect too much speech. Consider the fact that, as a matter of U.S. constitutional precedent, the First Amendment broadly protects speech that expresses or incites racial or religious hatred. Plainly we could agree that this is so as a matter of positive law while disagreeing about whether it ought to be so. (This is most straightforwardly true if we are legal positivists. These distinctions are muddied by moralistic theories of constitutional interpretation, which enjoin us to interpret positive legal rights in a constitutional text partly through the prism of our favorite normative political theory; see Dworkin 1996.)

Second, we can distinguish rights-based theories of free speech from non-rights-based theories. For many liberals, the legal right to free speech is justified by appealing to an underlying moral right to free speech, understood as a natural right held by all persons. (Some use the term human right equivalently—e.g., Alexander 2005—though the appropriate usage of that term is contested.) The operative notion of a moral right here is that of a claim-right (to invoke the influential analysis of Hohfeld 1917); it thereby correlates to moral duties held by others (paradigmatically, the state) to respect or protect the right. Such a right is natural in that it exerts normative force independently of whether anyone thinks it does, and regardless of whether it is codified into the law. A tyrannical state that imprisons dissidents acts unjustly, violating moral rights, even if there is no legal right to freedom of expression in its legal system.

For others, the underlying moral justification for free speech law need not come in the form of a natural moral right. For example, consequentialists might favor a legal right to free speech (on, e.g., welfare-maximizing grounds) without thinking that it tracks any underlying natural right. Or consider democratic theorists who have defended legal protections for free speech as central to democracy. Such theorists may think there is an underlying natural moral right to free speech, but they need not (especially if they hold an instrumental justification for democracy). Or consider deontologists who have argued that free speech functions as a kind of side-constraint on legitimate state action, requiring that the state always justify its decisions in a manner that respects citizens’ autonomy (Scanlon 1972). This theory does not cast free speech as a right, but rather as a principle that forbids the creation of laws that restrict speech on certain grounds. In the Hohfeldian analysis (Hohfeld 1917), such a principle may be understood as an immunity rather than a claim-right (Scanlon 2013: 402). Finally, some “minimalists” (to use a designation in Cohen 1993) favor legal protection for speech principally in response to government malice, corruption, and incompetence (see Schauer 1982; Epstein 1992; Leiter 2016). Such theorists need not recognize any fundamental moral right, either.

Third, among those who do ground free speech in a natural moral right, there is scope for disagreement about how tightly the law should mirror that right (as with any right; see Buchanan 2013). It is an open question what the precise legal codification of the moral right to free speech should involve. A justified legal right to freedom of speech may not mirror the precise contours of the natural moral right to freedom of speech. A raft of instrumental concerns enters the downstream analysis of what any justified legal right should look like; hence a defensible legal right to free speech may protect more speech (or indeed less speech) than the underlying moral right that justifies it. For example, even if the moral right to free speech does not protect so-called hate speech, such speech may still merit legal protection in the final analysis (say, because it would be too risky to entrust states with the power to limit those communications).

2. Justifying Free Speech

I will now examine several of the morally significant considerations taken to justify freedom of expression. Note that while many theorists have built whole conceptions of free speech out of a single interest or value alone, pluralism in this domain remains an option. It may well be that a plurality of interests serves to justify freedom of expression, properly understood (see, influentially, Emerson 1970 and Cohen 1993).

Suppose a state bans certain books on the grounds that it does not want us to hear the messages or arguments contained within them. Such censorship seems to involve some kind of insult or disrespect to citizens—treating us like children instead of adults who have a right to make up our own minds. This insight is fundamental in the free speech tradition. On this view, the state wrongs citizens by arrogating to itself the authority to decide what messages they ought to hear. That is so even if the state thinks that the speech will cause harm. As one author puts it,

the government may not suppress speech on the ground that the speech is likely to persuade people to do something that the government considers harmful. (Strauss 1991: 335)

Why are restrictions on persuasive speech objectionable? For some scholars, the relevant wrong here is a form of disrespect for citizens’ basic capacities (Dworkin 1996: 200; Nagel 2002: 44). For others, the wrong here inheres in a violation of the kind of relationship the state should have with its people: namely, that it should always act from a view of them as autonomous, and so entitled to make up their own minds (Scanlon 1972). It would simply be incompatible with a view of ourselves as autonomous—as authors of our own lives and choices—to grant the state the authority to pre-screen which opinions, arguments, and perspectives we should be allowed to think through, allowing us access only to those of which it approves.

This position is especially well-suited to justify some central doctrines of First Amendment jurisprudence. First, it justifies the claim that freedom of expression especially implicates the purposes with which the state acts. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why the state might restrict speech (so-called “time, place, and manner” restrictions)—for example, noise curfews in residential neighborhoods, which do not raise serious free speech concerns. Yet when the state restricts speech with the purpose of manipulating the communicative environment and controlling the views to which citizens are exposed, free speech is directly affronted (Rubenfeld 2001; Alexander 2005; Kramer 2021). To be sure, purposes are not all that matter for free speech theory. For example, the chilling effects of otherwise justified speech regulations (discussed below) are seldom intended. But they undoubtedly matter.

Second, this view justifies the related doctrines of content neutrality and viewpoint neutrality (see G. Stone 1983 and 1987) . Content neutrality is violated when the state bans discussion of certain topics (“no discussion of abortion”), whereas viewpoint neutrality is violated when the state bans advocacy of certain views (“no pro-choice views may be expressed”). Both affront free speech, though viewpoint-discrimination is especially egregious and so even harder to justify. While listener autonomy theories are not the only theories that can ground these commitments, they are in a strong position to account for their plausibility. Note that while these doctrines are central to the American approach to free speech, they are less central to other states’ jurisprudence (see A. Stone 2017).

Third, this approach helps us see that free speech is potentially implicated whenever the state seeks to control our thoughts and the processes through which we form beliefs. Consider an attempt to ban Marx’s Capital . As Marx is deceased, he is probably not wronged through such censorship. But even if one held idiosyncratic views about posthumous rights, such that Marx were wronged, it would be curious to think this was the central objection to such censorship. Those with the gravest complaint would be the living adults who have the prerogative to read the book and make up their own minds about it. Indeed free speech may even be implicated if the state banned watching sunsets or playing video games on the grounds that is disapproved of the thoughts to which such experiences might give rise (Alexander 2005: 8–9; Kramer 2021: 22).

These arguments emphasize the noninstrumental imperative of respecting listener autonomy. But there is an instrumental version of the view. Our autonomy interests are not merely respected by free speech; they are promoted by an environment in which we learn what others have to say. Our interests in access to information is served by exposure to a wide range of viewpoints about both empirical and normative issues (Cohen 1993: 229), which help us reflect on what goals to choose and how best to pursue them. These informational interests are monumental. As Raz suggests, if we had to choose whether to express our own views on some question, or listen to the rest of humanity’s views on that question, we would choose the latter; it is our interest as listeners in the public good of a vibrant public discourse that, he thinks, centrally justifies free speech (1991).

Such an interest in acquiring justified beliefs, or in accessing truth, can be defended as part of a fully consequentialist political philosophy. J.S. Mill famously defends free speech instrumentally, appealing to its epistemic benefits in On Liberty . Mill believes that, given our fallibility, we should routinely keep an open mind as to whether a seemingly false view may actually be true, or at least contain some valuable grain of truth. And even where a proposition is manifestly false, there is value in allowing its expression so that we can better apprehend why we take it to be false (1859: chapter 2), enabled through discursive conflict (cf. Simpson 2021). Mill’s argument focuses especially on the benefits to audiences:

It is is not on the impassioned partisan, it is on the calmer and more disinterested bystander, that this collision of opinions works its salutary effect. (1859: chapter 2, p. 94)

These views are sometimes associated with the idea of a “marketplace of ideas”, whereby the open clash of views inevitably leads to the correct ones winning out in debate. Few in the contemporary literature holds such a strong teleological thesis about the consequences of unrestricted debate (e.g., see Brietzke 1997; cf. Volokh 2011). Much evidence from behavioral economics and social psychology, as well as insights about epistemic injustice from feminist epistemology, strongly suggest that human beings’ rational powers are seriously limited. Smug confidence in the marketplace of ideas belies this. Yet it is doubtful that Mill held such a strong teleological thesis (Gordon 1997). Mill’s point was not that unrestricted discussion necessarily leads people to acquire the truth. Rather, it is simply the best mechanism available for ascertaining the truth, relative to alternatives in which some arbiter declares what he sees as true and suppresses what he sees as false (see also Leiter 2016).

Note that Mill’s views on free speech in chapter 2 in On Liberty are not simply the application of the general liberty principle defended in chapter 1 of that work; his view is not that speech is anodyne and therefore seldom runs afoul of the harm principle. The reason a separate argument is necessary in chapter 2 is precisely that he is carving out a partial qualification of the harm principle for speech (on this issue see Jacobson 2000, Schauer 2011b, and Turner 2014). On Mill’s view, plenty of harmful speech should still be allowed. Imminently dangerous speech, where there is no time for discussion before harm eventuates, may be restricted; but where there is time for discussion, it must be allowed. Hence Mill’s famous example that vociferous criticism of corn dealers as

starvers of the poor…ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer. (1859: chapter 3, p. 100)

The point is not that such speech is harmless; it’s that the instrumental benefits of permitting its expressions—and exposing its falsehood through public argument—justify the (remaining) costs.

Many authors have unsurprisingly argued that free speech is justified by our interests as speakers . This family of arguments emphasizes the role of speech in the development and exercise of our personal autonomy—our capacity to be the reflective authors of our own lives (Baker 1989; Redish 1982; Rawls 2005). Here an emphasis on freedom of expression is apt; we have an “expressive interest” (Cohen 1993: 224) in declaring our views—about the good life, about justice, about our identity, and about other aspects of the truth as we see it.

Our interests in self-expression may not always depend on the availability of a willing audience; we may have interests simply in shouting from the rooftops to declare who we are and what we believe, regardless of who else hears us. Hence communications to oneself—for example, in a diary or journal—are plausibly protected from interference (Redish 1992: 30–1; Shiffrin 2014: 83, 93; Kramer 2021: 23).

Yet we also have distinctive interests in sharing what we think with others. Part of how we develop our conceptions of the good life, forming judgments about how to live, is precisely through talking through the matter with others. This “deliberative interest” in directly served through opportunities to tell others what we think, so that we can learn from their feedback (Cohen 1993). Such encounters also offer opportunities to persuade others to adopt our views, and indeed to learn through such discussions who else already shares our views (Raz 1991).

Speech also seems like a central way in which we develop our capacities. This, too, is central to J.S. Mill’s defense of free speech, enabling people to explore different perspectives and points of view (1859). Hence it seems that when children engage in speech, to figure out what they think and to use their imagination to try out different ways of being in the world, they are directly engaging this interest. That explains the intuition that children, and not just adults, merit at least some protection under a principle of freedom of speech.

Note that while it is common to refer to speaker autonomy , we could simply refer to speakers’ capacities. Some political liberals hold that an emphasis on autonomy is objectionably Kantian or otherwise perfectionist, valorizing autonomy as a comprehensive moral ideal in a manner that is inappropriate for a liberal state (Cohen 1993: 229; Quong 2011). For such theorists, an undue emphasis on autonomy is incompatible with ideals of liberal neutrality toward different comprehensive conceptions of the good life (though cf. Shiffrin 2014: 81).

If free speech is justified by the importance of our interests in expressing ourselves, this justifies negative duties to refrain from interfering with speakers without adequate justification. Just as with listener theories, a strong presumption against content-based restrictions, and especially against viewpoint discrimination, is a clear requirement of the view. For the state to restrict citizens’ speech on the grounds that it disfavors what they have to say would affront the equal freedom of citizens. Imagine the state were to disallow the expression of Muslim or Jewish views, but allow the expression of Christian views. This would plainly transgress the right to freedom of expression, by valuing certain speakers’ interests in expressing themselves over others.

Many arguments for the right to free speech center on its special significance for democracy (Cohen 1993; Heinze 2016: Heyman 2009; Sunstein 1993; Weinstein 2011; Post 1991, 2009, 2011). It is possible to defend free speech on the noninstrumental ground that it is necessary to respect agents as democratic citizens. To restrict citizens’ speech is to disrespect their status as free and equal moral agents, who have a moral right to debate and decide the law for themselves (Rawls 2005).

Alternatively (or additionally), one can defend free speech on the instrumental ground that free speech promotes democracy, or whatever values democracy is meant to serve. So, for example, suppose the purpose of democracy is the republican one of establishing a state of non-domination between relationally egalitarian citizens; free speech can be defended as promoting that relation (Whitten 2022; Bonotti & Seglow 2022). Or suppose that democracy is valuable because of its role in promoting just outcomes (Arneson 2009) or tending to track those outcomes in a manner than is publicly justifiable (Estlund 2008) or is otherwise epistemically valuable (Landemore 2013).

Perhaps free speech doesn’t merely respect or promote democracy; another framing is that it is constitutive of it (Meiklejohn 1948, 1960; Heinze 2016). As Rawls says: “to restrict or suppress free political speech…always implies at least a partial suspension of democracy” (2005: 254). On this view, to be committed to democracy just is , in part, to be committed to free speech. Deliberative democrats famously contend that voting merely punctuates a larger process defined by a commitment to open deliberation among free and equal citizens (Gutmann & Thompson 2008). Such an unrestricted discussion is marked not by considerations of instrumental rationality and market forces, but rather, as Habermas puts it, “the unforced force of the better argument” (1992 [1996: 37]). One crucial way in which free speech might be constitutive of democracy is if it serves as a legitimation condition . On this view, without a process of open public discourse, the outcomes of the democratic decision-making process lack legitimacy (Dworkin 2009, Brettschneider 2012: 75–78, Cohen 1997, and Heinze 2016).

Those who justify free speech on democratic grounds may view this as a special application of a more general insight. For example, Scanlon’s listener theory (discussed above) contends that the state must always respect its citizens as capable of making up their own minds (1972)—a position with clear democratic implications. Likewise, Baker is adamant that both free speech and democracy are justified by the same underlying value of autonomy (2009). And while Rawls sees the democratic role of free speech as worthy of emphasis, he is clear that free speech is one of several basic liberties that enable the development and exercise of our moral powers: our capacities for a sense of justice and for the rational pursuit a lifeplan (2005). In this way, many theorists see the continuity between free speech and our broader interests as moral agents as a virtue, not a drawback (e.g., Kendrick 2017).

Even so, some democracy theorists hold that democracy has a special role in a theory of free speech, such that political speech in particular merits special protection (for an overview, see Barendt 2005: 154ff). One consequence of such views is that contributions to public discourse on political questions merit greater protection under the law (Sunstein 1993; cf. Cohen 1993: 227; Alexander 2005: 137–8). For some scholars, this may reflect instrumental anxieties about the special danger that the state will restrict the political speech of opponents and dissenters. But for others, an emphasis on political speech seems to reflect a normative claim that such speech is genuinely of greater significance, meriting greater protection, than other kinds of speech.

While conventional in the free speech literature, it is artificial to separate out our interests as speakers, listeners, and democratic citizens. Communication, and the thinking that feeds into it and that it enables, invariably engages our interests and activities across all these capacities. This insight is central to Seana Shiffrin’s groundbreaking thinker-based theory of freedom of speech, which seeks to unify the range of considerations that have informed the traditional theories (2014). Like other theories (e.g., Scanlon 1978, Cohen 1993), Shiffrin’s theory is pluralist in the range of interests it appeals to. But it offers a unifying framework that explains why this range of interests merits protection together.

On Shiffrin’s view, freedom of speech is best understood as encompassing both freedom of communication and freedom of thought, which while logically distinct are mutually reinforcing and interdependent (Shiffrin 2014: 79). Shiffrin’s account involves several profound claims about the relation between communication and thought. A central contention is that “free speech is essential to the development, functioning, and operation of thinkers” (2014: 91). This is, in part, because we must often externalize our ideas to articulate them precisely and hold them at a distance where we can evaluate them (p. 89). It is also because we work out what we think largely by talking it through with others. Such communicative processes may be monological, but they are typically dialogical; speaker and listener interests are thereby mutually engaged in an ongoing manner that cannot be neatly disentangled, as ideas are ping-ponged back and forth. Moreover, such discussions may concern democratic politics—engaging our interests as democratic citizens—but of course they need not. Aesthetics, music, local sports, the existence of God—these all are encompassed (2014: 92–93). Pace prevailing democratic theories,

One’s thoughts about political affairs are intrinsically and ex ante no more and no less central to the human self than thoughts about one’s mortality or one’s friends. (Shiffrin 2014: 93)

The other central aspect of Shiffrin’s view appeals to the necessity of communication for successfully exercising our moral agency. Sincere communication enables us

to share needs, emotions, intentions, convictions, ambitions, desires, fantasies, disappointments, and judgments. Thereby, we are enabled to form and execute complex cooperative plans, to understand one another, to appreciate and negotiate around our differences. (2014: 1)

Without clear and precise communication of the sort that only speech can provide, we cannot cooperate to discharge our collective obligations. Nor can we exercise our normative powers (such as consenting, waiving, or promising). Our moral agency thus depends upon protected channels through which we can relay our sincere thoughts to one another. The central role of free speech is to protect those channels, by ensuring agents are free to share what they are thinking without fear of sanction.

The thinker-based view has wide-ranging normative implications. For example, by emphasizing the continuity of speech and thought (a connection also noted in Macklem 2006 and Gilmore 2011), Shiffrin’s view powerfully explains the First Amendment doctrine that compelled speech also constitutes a violation of freedom of expression. Traditional listener- and speaker-focused theories seemingly cannot explain what is fundamentally objectionable with forcing someone to declare a commitment to something, as with children compelled to pledge allegiance to the American flag ( West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943). “What seems most troubling about the compelled pledge”, Shiffrin writes,

is that the motive behind the regulation, and its possible effect, is to interfere with the autonomous thought processes of the compelled speaker. (2014: 94)

Further, Shiffrin’s view explains why a concern for free speech does not merely correlate to negative duties not to interfere with expression; it also supports positive responsibilities on the part of the state to educate citizens, encouraging and supporting their development and exercise as thinking beings (2014: 107).

Consider briefly one final family of free speech theories, which appeal to the role of toleration or self-restraint. On one argument, freedom of speech is important because it develops our character as liberal citizens, helping us tame our illiberal impulses. The underlying idea of Lee Bollinger’s view is that liberalism is difficult; we recurrently face temptation to punish those who hold contrary views. Freedom of speech helps us to practice the general ethos of toleration in a manner than fortifies our liberal convictions (1986). Deeply offensive speech, like pro-Nazi speech, is protected precisely because toleration in these enormously difficult cases promotes “a general social ethic” of toleration more generally (1986: 248), thereby restraining unjust exercises of state power overall. This consequentialist argument treats the protection of offensive speech not as a tricky borderline case, but as “integral to the central functions of the principle of free speech” (1986: 133). It is precisely because tolerating evil speech involves “extraordinary self-restraint” (1986: 10) that it works its salutary effects on society generally.

The idea of self-restraint arises, too, in Matthew Kramer’s recent defense of free speech. Like listener theories, Kramer’s strongly deontological theory condemns censorship aimed at protecting audiences from exposure to misguided views. At the core of his theory is the thesis that the state’s paramount moral responsibility is to furnish the social conditions that serve the development and maintenance of citizens’ self-respect and respect for others. The achievement of such an ethically resilient citizenry, on Kramer’s view, has the effect of neutering the harmfulness of countless harmful communications. “Securely in a position of ethical strength”, the state “can treat the wares of pornographers and the maunderings of bigots as execrable chirps that are to be endured with contempt” (Kramer 2021: 147). In contrast, in a society where the state has failed to do its duty of inculcating a robust liberal-egalitarian ethos, the communication of illiberal creeds may well pose a substantial threat. Yet for the state then to react by banning such speech is

overweening because with them the system’s officials take control of communications that should have been defused (through the system’s fulfillment of its moral obligations) without prohibitory or preventative impositions. (2021: 147)

(One might agree with Kramer that this is so, but diverge by arguing that the state—having failed in its initial duty—ought to take measures to prevent the harms that flow from that failure.)

These theories are striking in that they assume that a chief task of free speech theory is to explain why harmful speech ought to be protected. This is in contrast to those who think that the chief task of free speech theory is to explain our interests in communicating with others, treating the further issue of whether (wrongfully) harmful communications should be protected as an open question, with different reasonable answers available (Kendrick 2017). In this way, toleration theories—alongside a lot of philosophical work on free speech—seem designed to vindicate the demanding American legal position on free speech, one unshared by virtually all other liberal democracies.

One final family of arguments for free speech appeals to the danger of granting the state powers it may abuse. On this view, we protect free speech chiefly because if we didn’t, it would be far easier for the state to silence its political opponents and enact unjust policies. On this view, a state with censorial powers is likely to abuse them. As Richard Epstein notes, focusing on the American case,

the entire structure of federalism, divided government, and the system of checks and balances at the federal level shows that the theme of distrust has worked itself into the warp and woof of our constitutional structure.

“The protection of speech”, he writes, “…should be read in light of these political concerns” (Epstein 1992: 49).

This view is not merely a restatement of the democracy theory; it does not affirm free speech as an element of valuable self-governance. Nor does it reduce to the uncontroversial thought that citizens need freedom of speech to check the behavior of fallible government agents (Blasi 1977). One need not imagine human beings to be particularly sinister to insist (as democracy theorists do) that the decisions of those entrusted with great power be subject to public discussion and scrutiny. The argument under consideration here is more pessimistic about human nature. It is an argument about the slippery slope that we create even when enacting (otherwise justified) speech restrictions; we set an unacceptable precedent for future conduct by the state (see Schauer 1985). While this argument is theoretical, there is clearly historical evidence for it, as in the manifold cases in which bans on dangerous sedition were used to suppress legitimate war protest. (For a sweeping canonical study of the uses and abuses of speech regulations during wartime, with a focus on U.S. history, see G. Stone 2004.)

These instrumental concerns could potentially justify the legal protection for free speech. But they do not to attempt to justify why we should care about free speech as a positive moral ideal (Shiffrin 2014: 83n); they are, in Cohen’s helpful terminology, “minimalist” rather than “maximalist” (Cohen 1993: 210). Accordingly, they cannot explain why free speech is something that even the most trustworthy, morally competent administrations, with little risk of corruption or degeneration, ought to respect. Of course, minimalists will deny that accounting for speech’s positive value is a requirement of a theory of free speech, and that critiquing them for this omission begs the question.

Pluralists may see instrumental concerns as valuably supplementing or qualifying noninstrumental views. For example, instrumental concerns may play a role in justifying deviations between the moral right to free communication, on the one hand, and a properly specified legal right to free communication, on the other. Suppose that there is no moral right to engage in certain forms of harmful expression (such as hate speech), and that there is in fact a moral duty to refrain from such expression. Even so, it does not follow automatically that such a right ought to be legally enforced. Concerns about the dangers of granting the state such power plausibly militate against the enforcement of at least some of our communicative duties—at least in those jurisdictions that lack robust and competently administered liberal-democratic safeguards.

This entry has canvassed a range of views about what justifies freedom of expression, with particular attention to theories that conceive free speech as a natural moral right. Clearly, the proponents of such views believe that they succeed in this justificatory effort. But others dissent, doubting that the case for a bona fide moral right to free speech comes through. Let us briefly note the nature of this challenge from free speech skeptics , exploring a prominent line of reply.

The challenge from skeptics is generally understood as that of showing that free speech is a special right . As Leslie Kendrick notes,

the term “special right” generally requires that a special right be entirely distinct from other rights and activities and that it receive a very high degree of protection. (2017: 90)

(Note that this usage is not to be confused from the alternative usage of “special right”, referring to conditional rights arising out of particular relationships; see Hart 1955.)

Take each aspect in turn. First, to vindicate free speech as a special right, it must serve some distinctive value or interest (Schauer 2015). Suppose free speech were just an implication of a general principle not to interfere in people’s liberty without justification. As Joel Feinberg puts it, “Liberty should be the norm; coercion always needs some special justification” (1984: 9). In such a case, then while there still might be contingent, historical reasons to single speech out in law as worthy of protection (Alexander 2005: 186), such reasons would not track anything especially distinctive about speech as an underlying moral matter. Second, to count as a special right, free speech must be robust in what it protects, such that only a compelling justification can override it (Dworkin 2013: 131). This captures the conviction, prominent among American constitutional theorists, that “any robust free speech principle must protect at least some harmful speech despite the harm it may cause” (Schauer 2011b: 81; see also Schauer 1982).

If the task of justifying a moral right to free speech requires surmounting both hurdles, it is a tall order. Skeptics about a special right to free speech doubt that the order can be met, and so deny that a natural moral right to freedom of expression can be justified (Schauer 2015; Alexander & Horton 1983; Alexander 2005; Husak 1985). But these theorists may be demanding too much (Kendrick 2017). Start with the claim that free speech must be distinctive. We can accept that free speech be more than simply one implication of a general presumption of liberty. But need it be wholly distinctive? Consider the thesis that free speech is justified by our autonomy interests—interests that justify other rights such as freedom of religion and association. Is it a problem if free speech is justified by interests that are continuous with, or overlap with, interests that justify other rights? Pace the free speech skeptics, maybe not. So long as such claims deserve special recognition, and are worth distinguishing by name, this may be enough (Kendrick 2017: 101). Many of the views canvassed above share normative bases with other important rights. For example, Rawls is clear that he thinks all the basic liberties constitute

essential social conditions for the adequate development and full exercise of the two powers of moral personality over a complete life. (Rawls 2005: 293)

The debate, then, is whether such a shared basis is a theoretical virtue (or at least theoretically unproblematic) or whether it is a theoretical vice, as the skeptics avow.

As for the claim that free speech must be robust, protecting harmful speech, “it is not necessary for a free speech right to protect harmful speech in order for it to be called a free speech right” (Kendrick 2017: 102). We do not tend to think that religious liberty must protect harmful religious activities for it to count as a special right. So it would be strange to insist that the right to free speech must meet this burden to count as a special right. Most of the theorists mentioned above take themselves to be offering views that protect quite a lot of harmful speech. Yet we can question whether this feature is a necessary component of their views, or whether we could imagine variations without this result.

3. Justifying Speech Restrictions

When, and why, can restrictions on speech be justified? It is common in public debate on free speech to hear the provocative claim that free speech is absolute . But the plausibility of such a claim depends on what is exactly meant by it. If understood to mean that no communications between humans can ever be restricted, such a view is held by no one in the philosophical debate. When I threaten to kill you unless you hand me your money; when I offer to bribe the security guard to let me access the bank vault; when I disclose insider information that the company in which you’re heavily invested is about to go bust; when I defame you by falsely posting online that you’re a child abuser; when I endanger you by labeling a drug as safe despite its potentially fatal side-effects; when I reveal your whereabouts to assist a murderer intent on killing you—across all these cases, communications may be uncontroversially restricted. But there are different views as to why.

To help organize such views, consider a set of distinctions influentially defended by Schauer (from 1982 onward). The first category involves uncovered speech : speech that does not even presumptively fall within the scope of a principle of free expression. Many of the speech-acts just canvassed, such as the speech involved in making a threat or insider training, plausibly count as uncovered speech. As the U.S. Supreme Court has said of fighting words (e.g., insults calculated to provoke a street fight),

such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. ( Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942)

The general idea here is that some speech simply has negligible—and often no —value as free speech, in light of its utter disconnection from the values that justify free speech in the first place. (For discussion of so-called “low-value speech” in the U.S. context, see Sunstein 1989 and Lakier 2015.) Accordingly, when such low-value speech is harmful, it is particularly easy to justify its curtailment. Hence the Court’s view that “the prevention and punishment of [this speech] have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem”. For legislation restricting such speech, the U.S. Supreme Court applies a “rational basis” test, which is very easy to meet, as it simply asks whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. (Note that it is widely held that it would still be impermissible to selectively ban low-value speech on a viewpoint-discriminatory basis—e.g., if a state only banned fighting words from left-wing activists while allowing them from right-wing activists.)

Schauer’s next category concerns speech that is covered but unprotected . This is speech that engages the values that underpin free speech; yet the countervailing harm of the speech justifies its restriction. In such cases, while there is real value in such expression as free speech, that value is outweighed by competing normative concerns (or even, as we will see below, on behalf of the very values that underpin free speech). In U.S. constitutional jurisprudence, this category encompasses those extremely rare cases in which restrictions on political speech pass the “strict scrutiny” test, whereby narrow restrictions on high-value speech can be justified due to the compelling state interests thereby served. Consider Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 2010, in which the Court held that an NGO’s legal advice to a terrorist organization on how to pursue peaceful legal channels were legitimately criminalized under a counter-terrorism statute. While such speech had value as free speech (at least on one interpretation of this contested ruling), the imperative of counter-terrorism justified its restriction. (Arguably, commercial speech, while sometimes called low-value speech by scholars, falls into the covered but unprotected category. Under U.S. law, legislation restricting it receives “intermediate scrutiny” by courts—requiring restrictions to be narrowly drawn to advance a substantial government interest. Such a test suggests that commercial speech has bona fide free-speech value, making it harder to justify regulations on it than regulations on genuinely low-value speech like fighting words. It simply doesn’t have as much free-speech value as categories like political speech, religious speech, or press speech, all of which trigger the strict scrutiny test when restricted.)

As a philosophical matter, we can reasonably disagree about what speech qualifies as covered but unprotected (and need not treat the verdicts of the U.S. Supreme Court as philosophically decisive). For example, consider politically-inflected hate speech, which advances repugnant ideas about the inferior status of certain groups. One could concur that there is substantial free-speech value in such expression, just because it involves the sincere expression of views about central questions of politics and justice (however misguided the views doubtlessly are). Yet one could nevertheless hold that such speech should not be protected in virtue of the substantial harms to which it can lead. In such cases, the free-speech value is outweighed. Many scholars who defend the permissibility of legal restrictions on hate speech hold such a view (e.g., Parekh 2012; Waldron 2012). (More radically, one could hold that such speech’s value is corrupted by its evil, such that it qualifies as genuinely low-value; Howard 2019a.)

The final category of speech encompasses expression that is covered and protected . To declare that speech is protected just is to conclude that it is immune from restriction. A preponderance of human communications fall into this category. This does not mean that such speech can never be regulated ; content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations (e.g., prohibiting loud nighttime protests) can certainly be justified (G. Stone 1987). But such regulations must not be viewpoint discriminatory; they must apply even-handedly across all forms of protected speech.

Schauer’s taxonomy offers a useful organizing framework for how we should think about different forms of speech. Where does it leave the claim that free speech is absolute? The possibility of speech that is covered but unprotected suggests that free speech should sometimes be restricted on account of rival normative concerns. Of course, one could contend that such a category, while logically possible, is substantively an empty set; such a position would involve some kind of absoluteness about free speech (holding that where free-speech values are engaged by expression, no countervailing values can ever be weighty enough to override them). Such a position would be absolutist in a certain sense while granting the permissibility of restrictions on speech that do not engage the free-speech values. (For a recent critique of Schauer’s framework, arguing that governmental designation of some speech as low-value is incompatible with the very ideal of free speech, see Kramer 2021: 31.)

In what follows, this entry will focus on Schauer’s second category: speech that is covered by a free speech principle, but is nevertheless unprotected because of the harms it causes. How do we determine what speech falls into this category? How, in other words, do we determine the limits of free speech? Unsurprisingly, this is where most of the controversy lies.

Most legal systems that protect free speech recognize that the right has limits. Consider, for example, international human rights law, which emphatically protects the freedom of speech as a fundamental human right while also affirming specific restrictions on certain seriously harmful speech. Article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights declares that “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”—but then immediately notes that this right “carries with it special duties and responsibilities”. The subsequent ICCPR article proceeds to endorse legal restrictions on “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”, as well as speech constituting “propaganda for war” (ICCPR). While such restrictions would plainly be struck down as unconstitutional affronts to free speech in the U.S., this more restrictive approach prevails in most liberal democracies’ treatment of harmful speech.

Set aside the legal issue for now. How should we think about how to determine the limits of the moral right free speech? Those seeking to justify limits on speech tend to appeal to one of two strategies (Howard and Simpson forthcoming). The first strategy appeals to the importance of balancing free speech against other moral values when they come into conflict. This strategy involves external limits on free speech. (The next strategy, discussed below, invokes free speech itself, or the values that justify it, as limit-setting rationales; it thus involves internal limits on free speech.)

A balancing approach recognizes a moral conflict between unfettered communication and external values. Consider again the case of hate speech, understood as expression that attacks members of socially vulnerable groups as inferior or dangerous. On all of the theories canvassed above, there are grounds for thinking that restrictions on hate speech are prima facie in violation of the moral right to free speech. Banning hate speech to prevent people from hearing ideas that might incline them to bigotry plainly seems to disrespect listener autonomy. Further, even when speakers are expressing prejudiced views, they are still engaging their autonomous faculties. Certainly, they are expressing views on questions of public political concern, even false ones. And as thinkers they are engaged in the communication of sincere testimony to others. On many of the leading theories, the values underpinning free speech seem to be militate against bans on hate speech.

Even so, other values matter. Consider, for example, the value of upholding the equal dignity of all citizens. A central insight of critical race theory is that public expressions of white supremacy, for example, attack and undermine that equal dignity (Matsuda, Lawrence, Delgado, & Crenshaw 1993). On Jeremy Waldron’s view (2012), hate speech is best understood as a form of group defamation, launching spurious attacks on others’ reputations and thereby undermining their standing as respected equals in their own community (relatedly, see Beauharnais v. Illinois 1952).

Countries that ban hate speech, accordingly, are plausibly understood not as opposed to free speech, but as recognizing the importance that it be balanced when conflicting with other values. Such balancing can be understood in different ways. In European human rights law, for example, the relevant idea is that the right to free speech is balanced against other rights ; the relevant task, accordingly, is to specify what counts as a proportionate balance between these rights (see Alexy 2003; J. Greene 2021).

For others, the very idea of balancing rights undermines their deontic character. This alternative framing holds that the balancing occurs before we specify what rights are; on this view, we balance interests against each other, and only once we’ve undertaken that balancing do we proceed to define what our rights protect. As Scanlon puts it,

The only balancing is balancing of interests. Rights are not balanced, but are defined, or redefined, in the light of the balance of interests and of empirical facts about how these interests can best be protected. (2008: 78)

This balancing need not come in the form of some crude consequentialism; otherwise it would be acceptable to limit the rights of the few to secure trivial benefits for the many. On a contractualist moral theory such as Scanlon’s, the test is to assess the strength of any given individual’s reason to engage in (or access) the speech, against the strength of any given individual’s reason to oppose it.

Note that those who engage in balancing need not give up on the idea of viewpoint neutrality; they can accept that, as a general principle, the state should not restrict speech on the grounds that it disapproves of its message and dislikes that others will hear it. The point, instead, is that this commitment is defeasible; it is possible to be overridden.

One final comment is apt. Those who are keen to balance free speech against other values tend to be motivated by the concern that speech can cause harm, either directly or indirectly (on this distinction, see Schauer 1993). But to justify restrictions on speech, it is not sufficient (and perhaps not even necessary) to show that such speech imposes or risks imposing harm. The crucial point is that the speech is wrongful (or, perhaps, wrongfully harmful or risky) , breaching a moral duty that speakers owe to others. Yet very few in the free speech literature think that the mere offensiveness of speech is sufficient to justify restrictions on it. Even Joel Feinberg, who thinks offensiveness can sometimes be grounds for restricting conduct, makes a sweeping exception for

[e]xpressions of opinion, especially about matters of public policy, but also about matters of empirical fact, and about historical, scientific, theological, philosophical, political, and moral questions. (1985: 44)

And in many cases, offensive speech may be actively salutary, as when racists are offended by defenses of racial equality (Waldron 1987). Accordingly, despite how large it looms in public debate, discussion of offensive speech will not play a major role in the discussion here.

We saw that one way to justify limits on free speech is to balance it against other values. On that approach, free speech is externally constrained. A second approach, in contrast, is internally constrained. On this approach, the very values that justify free speech themselves determine its own limits. This is a revisionist approach to free speech since, unlike orthodox thinking, it contends that a commitment to free speech values can counterintuitively support the restriction of speech—a surprising inversion of traditional thinking on the topic (see Howard and Simpson forthcoming). This move—justifying restrictions on speech by appealing to the values that underpin free speech—is now prevalent in the philosophical literature (for an overview, see Barendt 2005: 1ff).

Consider, for example, the claim that free speech is justified by concerns of listener autonomy. On such a view, as we saw above, autonomous citizens have interests in exposure to a wide range of viewpoints, so that they can decide for themselves what to believe. But many have pointed out that this is not autonomous citizens’ only interest; they also have interests in not getting murdered by those incited by incendiary speakers (Amdur 1980). Likewise, insofar as being targeted by hate speech undermines the exercise of one’s autonomous capacities, appeal to the underlying value of autonomy could well support restrictions on such speech (Brison 1998; see also Brink 2001). What’s more, if our interests as listeners in acquiring accurate information is undermined by fraudulent information, then restrictions on such information could well be compatible with our status as autonomous; this was one of the insights that led Scanlon to complicate his theory of free speech (1978).

Or consider the theory that free speech is justified because of its role in enabling autonomous speakers to express themselves. But as Japa Pallikkathayil has argued, some speech can intimidate its audiences into staying silent (as with some hate speech), out of fear for what will happen if they speak up (Pallikkathayil 2020). In principle, then, restrictions on hate speech may serve to support the value of speaker expression, rather than undermine it (see also Langton 2018; Maitra 2009; Maitra & McGowan 2007; and Matsuda 1989: 2337). Indeed, among the most prominent claims in feminist critiques of pornography is precisely that it silences women—not merely through its (perlocutionary) effects in inspiring rape, but more insidiously through its (illocutionary) effects in altering the force of the word “no” (see MacKinnon 1984; Langton 1993; and West 204 [2022]; McGowan 2003 and 2019; cf. Kramer 2021, pp. 160ff).

Now consider democracy theories. On the one hand, democracy theorists are adamant that citizens should be free to discuss any proposals, even the destruction of democracy itself (e.g., Meiklejohn 1948: 65–66). On the other hand, it isn’t obvious why citizens’ duties as democratic citizens could not set a limit to their democratic speech rights (Howard 2019a). The Nazi propagandist Goebbels is said to have remarked:

This will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed. (as quoted in Fox & Nolte 1995: 1)

But it is not clear why this is necessarily so. Why should we insist on a conception of democracy that contains a self-destruct mechanism? Merely stipulating that democracy requires this is not enough (see A. Greene and Simpson 2017).

Finally, consider Shiffrin’s thinker-based theory. Shiffrin’s view is especially well-placed to explain why varieties of harmful communications are protected speech; what the theory values is the sincere transmission of veridical testimony, whereby speakers disclose what they genuinely believe to others, even if what they believe is wrongheaded and dangerous. Yet because the sincere testimony of thinkers is what qualifies some communication for protection, Shiffrin is adamant that lying falls outside the protective ambit of freedom of expression (2014) This, then, sets an internal limit on her own theory (even if she herself disfavors all lies’ outright prohibition for reasons of tolerance). The claim that lying falls outside the protective ambit of free speech is itself a recurrent suggestion in the literature (Strauss 1991: 355; Brown 2023). In an era of rampant disinformation, this internal limit is of substantial practical significance.

Suppose the moral right (or principle) of free speech is limited, as most think, such that not all communications fall within its protective ambit (either for external reasons, internal reasons, or both). Even so, it does not follow that laws banning such unprotected speech can be justified all-things-considered. Further moral tests must be passed before any particular policy restricting speech can be justified. This sub-section focuses on the requirement that speech restrictions be proportionate .

The idea that laws implicating fundamental rights must be proportionate is central in many jurisdictions’ constitutional law, as well as in the international law of human rights. As a representative example, consider the specification of proportionality offered by the Supreme Court of Canada:

First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair, or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair “as little as possible” the right or freedom in question[…] Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of “sufficient importance” ( R v. Oakes 1986).

It is this third element (often called “proportionality stricto sensu ”) on which we will concentrate here; this is the focused sense of proportionality that roughly tracks how the term is used in the philosophical literatures on defensive harm and war, as well as (with some relevant differences) criminal punishment. (The strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny tests of U.S. constitutional law are arguably variations of the proportionality test; but set aside this complication for now as it distracts from the core philosophical issues. For relevant legal discussion, see Tsesis 2020.)

Proportionality, in the strict sense, concerns the relation between the costs or harms imposed by some measure and the benefits that the measure is designed to secure. The organizing distinction in recent philosophical literature (albeit largely missing in the literature on free speech) is one between narrow proportionality and wide proportionality . While there are different ways to cut up the terrain between these terms, let us stipulatively define them as follows. An interference is narrowly proportionate just in case the intended target of the interference is liable to bear the costs of that interference. An interference is widely proportionate just in case the collateral costs that the interference unintentionally imposes on others can be justified. (This distinction largely follows the literature in just war theory and the ethics of defensive force; see McMahan 2009.) While the distinction is historically absent from free speech theory, it has powerful payoffs in helping to structure this chaotic debate (as argued in Howard 2019a).

So start with the idea that restrictions on communication must be narrowly proportionate . For a restriction to be narrowly proportionate, those whose communications are restricted must be liable to bear their costs, such that they are not wronged by their imposition. One standard way to be liable to bear certain costs is to have a moral duty to bear them (Tadros 2012). So, for example, if speakers have a moral duty to refrain from libel, hate speech, or some other form of harmful speech, they are liable to bear at least some costs involved in the enforcement of that duty. Those costs cannot be unlimited; a policy of executing hate speakers could not plausibly be justified. Typically, in both defensive and punitive contexts, wrongdoers’ liability is determined by their culpability, the severity of their wrong, or some combination of the two. While it is difficult to say in the abstract what the precise maximal cost ceiling is for any given restriction, as it depends hugely on the details, the point is simply that there is some ceiling above which a speech restriction (like any restriction) imposes unacceptably high costs, even on wrongdoers.

Second, for a speech restriction to be justified, we must also show that it would be widely proportionate . Suppose a speaker is liable to bear the costs of some policy restricting her communication, such that she is not wronged by its imposition. It may be that the collateral costs of such a policy would render it unacceptable. One set of costs is chilling effects , the “overdeterrence of benign conduct that occurs incidentally to a law’s legitimate purpose or scope” (Kendrick 2013: 1649). The core idea is that laws targeting unprotected, legitimately proscribed expression may nevertheless end up having a deleterious impact on protected expression. This is because laws are often vague, overbroad, and in any case are likely to be misapplied by fallible officials (Schauer 1978: 699).

Note that if a speech restriction produces chilling effects, it does not follow that the restriction should not exist at all. Rather, concern about chilling effects instead suggests that speech restrictions should be under-inclusive—restricting less speech than is actually harmful—in order to create “breathing space”, or “a buffer zone of strategic protection” (Schauer 1978: 710) for legitimate expression and so reduce unwanted self-censorship. For example, some have argued that even though speech can cause harm recklessly or negligently, we should insist on specific intent as the mens rea of speech crimes in order to reduce any chilling effects that could follow (Alexander 1995: 21–128; Schauer 1978: 707; cf. Kendrick 2013).

But chilling effects are not the only sort of collateral effects to which speech restrictions could lead. Earlier we noted the risk that states might abuse their censorial powers. This, too, could militate in favor of underinclusive speech restrictions. Or the implication could be more radical. Consider the problem that it is difficult to author restrictions on hate speech in a tightly specified way; the language involved is open-ended in a manner that enables states to exercise considerable judgment in deciding what speech-acts, in fact, count as violations (see Strossen 2018). Given the danger that the state will misuse or abuse these laws to punish legitimate speech, some might think this renders their enactment widely disproportionate. Indeed, even if the law were well-crafted and would be judiciously applied by current officials, the point is that those in the future may not be so trustworthy.

Those inclined to accept such a position might simply draw the conclusion that legislatures ought to refrain from enacting laws against hate speech. A more radical conclusion is that the legal right to free speech ought to be specified so that hate speech is constitutionally protected. In other words, we ought to give speakers a legal right to violate their moral duties, since enforcing those moral duties through law is simply too risky. By appealing to this logic, it is conceivable that the First Amendment position on hate speech could be justified all-things-considered—not because the underlying moral right to free speech protects hate speech, but because hate speech must be protected for instrumental reasons of preventing future abuses of power (Howard 2019a).

Suppose certain restrictions on harmful speech can be justified as proportionate, in both the narrow and wide senses. This is still not sufficient to justify them all-things-considered. Additionally, they must be justified as necessary . (Note that some conceptions of proportionality in human rights law encompass the necessity requirement, but this entry follows the prevailing philosophical convention by treating them as distinct.)

Why might restrictions on harmful speech be unnecessary? One of the standard claims in the free speech literature is that we should respond to harmful speech not by banning it, but by arguing back against it. Counter-speech—not censorship—is the appropriate solution. This line of reasoning is old. As John Milton put it in 1644: “Let [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” The insistence on counter-speech as the remedy for harmful speech is similarly found, as noted above, throughout chapter 2 of Mill’s On Liberty .

For many scholars, this line of reply is justified by the fact that they think the harmful speech in question is protected by the moral right to free speech. For such scholars, counter-speech is the right response because censorship is morally off the table. For other scholars, the recourse to counter-speech has a plausible distinct rationale (although it is seldom articulated): its possibility renders legal restrictions unnecessary. And because it is objectionable to use gratuitous coercion, legal restrictions are therefore impermissible (Howard 2019a). Such a view could plausibly justify Mill’s aforementioned analysis in the corn dealer example, whereby censorship is permissible but only when there’s no time for counter-speech—a view that is also endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

Whether this argument succeeds depends upon a wide range of further assumptions—about the comparable effectiveness of counter-speech relative to law; about the burdens that counter-speech imposes on prospective counter-speakers. Supposing that the argument succeeds, it invites a range of further normative questions about the ethics of counter-speech. For example, it is important who has the duty to engage in counter-speech, who its intended audience is, and what specific forms the counter-speech ought to take—especially in order to maximize its persuasive effectiveness (Brettschneider 2012; Cepollaro, Lepoutre, & Simpson 2023; Howard 2021b; Lepoutre 2021; Badano & Nuti 2017). It is also important to ask questions about the moral limits of counter-speech. For example, insofar as publicly shaming wrongful speakers has become a prominent form of counter-speech, it is crucial to interrogate its permissibility (e.g., Billingham and Parr 2020).

This final section canvasses the young philosophical debate concerning freedom of speech on the internet. With some important exceptions (e.g., Barendt 2005: 451ff), this issue has only recently accelerated (for an excellent edited collection, see Brison & Gelber 2019). There are many normative questions to be asked about the moral rights and obligations of internet platforms. Here are three. First, do internet platforms have moral duties to respect the free speech of their users? Second, do internet platforms have moral duties to restrict (or at least refrain from amplifying) harmful speech posted by their users? And finally, if platforms do indeed have moral duties to restrict harmful speech, should those duties be legally enforced?

The reference to internet platforms , is a deliberate focus on large-scale social media platforms, through which people can discover and publicly share user-generated content. We set aside other entities such as search engines (Whitney & Simpson 2019), important though they are. That is simply because the central political controversies, on which philosophical input is most urgent, concern the large social-media platforms.

Consider the question of whether internet platforms have moral duties to respect the free speech of their users. One dominant view in the public discourse holds that the answer is no . On this view, platforms are private entities, and as such enjoy the prerogative to host whatever speech they like. This would arguably be a function of them having free speech rights themselves. Just as the free speech rights of the New York Times give it the authority to publish whatever op-eds it sees fit, the free speech rights of platforms give them the authority to exercise editorial or curatorial judgment about what speech to allow. On this view, if Facebook were to decide to become a Buddhist forum, amplifying the speech of Buddhist users and promoting Buddhist perspectives and ideas, and banning speech promoting other religions, it would be entirely within its moral (and thus proper legal) rights to do so. So, too, if it were to decide to become an atheist forum.

A radical alternative view holds that internet platforms constitute a public forum , a term of art from U.S. free speech jurisprudence used to designate spaces “designed for and dedicated to expressive activities” ( Southeastern Promotions Ltd., v. Conrad 1975). As Kramer has argued:

social-media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter and YouTube have become public fora. Although the companies that create and run those platforms are not morally obligated to sustain them in existence at all, the role of controlling a public forum morally obligates each such company to comply with the principle of freedom of expression while performing that role. No constraints that deviate from the kinds of neutrality required under that principle are morally legitimate. (Kramer 2021: 58–59)

On this demanding view, platforms’ duties to respect speech are (roughly) identical to the duties of states. Accordingly, if efforts by the state to restrict hate speech, pornography, and public health misinformation (for example) are objectionable affronts to free speech, so too are platforms’ content moderation rules for such content. A more moderate view does not hold that platforms are public forums as such, but holds that government channels or pages qualify as public forums (the claim at issue in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (2019).)

Even if we deny that platforms constitute public forums, it is plausible that they engage in a governance function of some kind (Klonick 2018). As Jack Balkin has argued, the traditional model of free speech, which sees it as a relation between speakers and the state, is today plausibly supplanted by a triadic model, involving a more complex relation between speakers, governments, and intermediaries (2004, 2009, 2018, 2021). If platforms do indeed have some kind of governance function, it may well trigger responsibilities for transparency and accountability (as with new legislation such as the EU’s Digital Services Act and the UK’s Online Safety Act).

Second, consider the question of whether platforms have a duty to remove harmful content posted by users. Even those who regard them as public forums could agree that platforms may have a moral responsibility to remove illegal unprotected speech. Yet a dominant view in the public debate has historically defended platforms’ place as mere conduits for others’ speech. This is the current position under U.S. law (as with 47 U.S. Code §230), which broadly exempts platforms from liability for much illegal speech, such as defamation. On this view, we should view platforms as akin to bulletin boards: blame whoever posts wrongful content, but don’t hold the owner of the board responsible.

This view is under strain. Even under current U.S. law, platforms are liable for removing some content, such as child sexual abuse material and copyright infringements, suggesting that it is appropriate to demand some accountability for the wrongful content posted by others. An increasing body of philosophical work explores the idea that platforms are indeed morally responsible for removing extreme content. For example, some have argued that platforms have a special responsibility to prevent the radicalization that occurs on their networks, given the ways in which extreme content is amplified to susceptible users (Barnes 2022). Without engaging in moderation (i.e., removal) of harmful content, platforms are plausibly complicit with the wrongful harms perpetrated by users (Howard forthcoming).

Yet it remains an open question what a responsible content moderation policy ought to involve. Many are tempted by a juridical model, whereby platforms remove speech in accordance with clearly announced rules, with user appeals mechanisms in place for individual speech decisions to ensure they are correctly made (critiqued in Douek 2022b). Yet platforms have billions of users and remove millions of pieces of content per week. Accordingly, perfection is not possible. Moving quickly to remove harmful content during a crisis—e.g., Covid misinformation—will inevitably increase the number of false positives (i.e., legitimate speech taken down as collateral damage). It is plausible that the individualistic model of speech decisions adopted by courts is decidedly implausible to help us govern online content moderation; as noted in Douek 2021 and 2022a, what is needed is analysis of how the overall system should operate at scale, with a focus on achieving proportionality between benefits and costs. Alternatively, one might double down and insist that the juridical model is appropriate, given the normative significance of speech. And if it is infeasible for social-media companies to meet its demands given their size, then all the worse for social-media companies. On this view, it is they who must bend to meet the moral demands of free speech theory, not the other way around.

Substantial philosophical work needs to be done to deliver on this goal. The work is complicated by the fact that artificial intelligence (AI) is central to the processes of content moderation; human moderators, themselves subjected to terrible working conditions at long hours, work in conjunction with machine learning tools to identify and remove content that platforms have restricted. Yet AI systems notoriously are as biased as their training data. Further, their “black box” decisions are cryptic and cannot be easily understood. Given that countless speech decisions will necessarily be made without human involvement, it is right to ask whether it is reasonable to expect users to accept the deliverances of machines (e.g., see Vredenburgh 2022; Lazar forthcoming a). Note that machine intelligence is used not merely for content moderation, narrowly understood as the enforcement of rules about what speech is allowed. It is also deployed for the broader practice of content curation, determining what speech gets amplified — raising the question of what normative principles should govern such amplification; see Lazar forthcoming b).

Finally, there is the question of legal enforcement. Showing that platforms have the moral responsibility to engage in content moderation is necessary to justifying its codification into a legal responsibility. Yet it is not sufficient; one could accept that platforms have moral duties to moderate (some) harmful speech while also denying that those moral duties ought to be legally enforced. A strong, noninstrumental version of such a view would hold that while speakers have moral duties to refrain from wrongful speech, and platforms have duties not to platform or amplify it, the coercive enforcement of such duties would violate the moral right to freedom of expression. A more contingent, instrumental version of the view would hold that legal enforcement is not in principle impermissible; but in practice, it is simply too risky to grant the state the authority to enforce platforms’ and speakers’ moral duties, given the potential for abuse and overreach.

Liberals who champion the orthodox interpretation of the First Amendment, yet insist on robust content moderation, likely hold one or both of these views. Yet globally such views seem to be in the minority. Serious legislation is imminent that will subject social-media companies to burdensome regulation, in the form of such laws as the Digital Services Act in the European Union and the Online Safety Bill in the UK. Normatively evaluating such legislation is a pressing task. So, too, is the task of designing normative theories to guide the design of content moderation systems, and the wider governance of the digital public sphere. On both fronts, political philosophers should get back to work.

Alexander, Larry [Lawrence], 1995, “Free Speech and Speaker’s Intent”, Constitutional Commentary , 12(1): 21–28.
–––, 2005, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? , (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Alexander, Lawrence and Paul Horton, 1983, “The Impossibility of a Free Speech Principle Review Essay”, Northwestern University Law Review , 78(5): 1319–1358.
Alexy, Robert, 2003, “Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality”, Ratio Juris , 16(2): 131–140. doi:10.1111/1467-9337.00228
Amdur, Robert, 1980, “Scanlon on Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 9(3): 287–300.
Arneson, Richard, 2009, “Democracy is Not Intrinsically Just”, in Justice and Democracy , Keith Dowding, Robert E. Goodin, and Carole Pateman (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–58.
Baker, C. Edwin, 1989, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2009, “Autonomy and Hate Speech”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 139–157 (ch. 8). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0009
Balkin, Jack M., 2004, “Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society”, New York University Law Review , 79(1): 1–55.
–––, 2009, “The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age Free Speech and Press in the Digital Age”, Pepperdine Law Review , 36(2): 427–444.
–––, 2018, “Free Speech Is a Triangle Essays”, Columbia Law Review , 118(7): 2011–2056.
–––, 2021, “How to Regulate (and Not Regulate) Social Media”, Journal of Free Speech Law , 1(1): 71–96. [ Balkin 2021 available online (pdf) ]
Barendt, Eric M., 2005, Freedom of Speech , second edition, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199225811.001.0001
Barnes, Michael Randall, 2022, “Online Extremism, AI, and (Human) Content Moderation”, Feminist Philosophy Quarterly , 8(3/4): article 6. [ Barnes 2022 available online ]
Beauharnais v. Illinois 343 U.S. 250 (1952).
Billingham, Paul and Tom Parr, 2020, “Enforcing Social Norms: The Morality of Public Shaming”, European Journal of Philosophy , 28(4): 997–1016. doi:10.1111/ejop.12543
Blasi, Vincent, 1977, “The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory”, American Bar Foundation Research Journal 3: 521–649.
–––, 2004, “Holmes and the Marketplace of Ideas”, The Supreme Court Review , 2004: 1–46.
Brettschneider, Corey Lang, 2012, When the State Speaks, What Should It Say? How Democracies Can Protect Expression and Promote Equality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brietzke, Paul H., 1997, “How and Why the Marketplace of Ideas Fails”, Valparaiso University Law Review , 31(3): 951–970.
Bollinger, Lee C., 1986, The Tolerant Society: Free Speech and Extremist Speech in America , New York: Oxford University Press.
Bonotti, Matteo and Jonathan Seglow, 2022, “Freedom of Speech: A Relational Defence”, Philosophy & Social Criticism , 48(4): 515–529.
Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
Brink, David O., 2001, “Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech”, Legal Theory , 7(2): 119–157. doi:10.1017/S1352325201072019
Brison, Susan J., 1998, “The Autonomy Defense of Free Speech”, Ethics , 108(2): 312–339. doi:10.1086/233807
Brison, Susan J. and Katharine Gelber (eds), 2019, Free Speech in the Digital Age , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190883591.001.0001
Brown, Étienne, 2023, “Free Speech and the Legal Prohibition of Fake News”, Social Theory and Practice , 49(1): 29–55. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract202333179
Buchanan, Allen E., 2013, The Heart of Human Rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199325382.001.0001
Cepollaro, Bianca, Maxime Lepoutre, and Robert Mark Simpson, 2023, “Counterspeech”, Philosophy Compass , 18(1): e12890. doi:10.1111/phc3.12890
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
Cohen, Joshua, 1993, “Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 22(3): 207–263.
–––, 1997, “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy”, in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics , James Bohman and William Rehg (eds), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 67–92.
Dworkin, Ronald, 1981, “Is There a Right to Pornography?”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 1(2): 177–212. doi:10.1093/ojls/1.2.177
–––, 1996, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 2006, “A New Map of Censorship”, Index on Censorship , 35(1): 130–133. doi:10.1080/03064220500532412
–––, 2009, “Forward.” In Extreme Speech and Democracy , ed. J. Weinstein and I. Hare, pp. v-ix. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2013, Religion without God , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Douek, Evelyn, 2021, “Governing Online Speech: From ‘Posts-as-Trumps’ to Proportionality and Probability”, Columbia Law Review , 121(3): 759–834.
–––, 2022a, “Content Moderation as Systems Thinking”, Harvard Law Review , 136(2): 526–607.
–––, 2022b, “The Siren Call of Content Moderation Formalism”, in Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of Our Democracy , Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 139–156 (ch. 9). doi:10.1093/oso/9780197621080.003.0009
Ely, John Hart, 1975, “Flag Desecration: A Case Study in the Roles of Categorization and Balancing in First Amendment Analysis”, Harvard Law Review , 88: 1482–1508.
Emerson, Thomas I., 1970, The System of Freedom of Expression , New York: Random House.
Epstein, Richard A., 1992, “Property, Speech, and the Politics of Distrust”, University of Chicago Law Review , 59(1): 41–90.
Estlund, David, 2008, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Feinberg, Joel, 1984, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law Volume 1: Harm to Others , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195046641.001.0001
–––, 1985, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Volume 2: Offense to Others , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195052153.001.0001
Fish, Stanley Eugene, 1994, There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too , New York: Oxford University Press.
Fox, Gregory H. and Georg Nolte, 1995, “Intolerant Democracies”, Harvard International Law Journal , 36(1): 1–70.
Gelber, Katharine, 2010, “Freedom of Political Speech, Hate Speech and the Argument from Democracy: The Transformative Contribution of Capabilities Theory”, Contemporary Political Theory , 9(3): 304–324. doi:10.1057/cpt.2009.8
Gilmore, Jonathan, 2011, “Expression as Realization: Speakers’ Interests in Freedom of Speech”, Law and Philosophy , 30(5): 517–539. doi:10.1007/s10982-011-9096-z
Gordon, Jill, 1997, “John Stuart Mill and the ‘Marketplace of Ideas’:”, Social Theory and Practice , 23(2): 235–249. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract199723210
Greenawalt, Kent, 1989, Speech, Crime, and the Uses of Language , New York: Oxford University Press.
Greene, Amanda R. and Robert Mark Simpson, 2017, “Tolerating Hate in the Name of Democracy”, The Modern Law Review , 80(4): 746–765. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12283
Greene, Jamal, 2021, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession with Rights Is Tearing America Apart , Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2008, Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen, 1992 [1996], Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats , Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Translated as Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , William Rehg (trans.), (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
Hare, Ivan and James Weinstein (eds), 2009, Extreme Speech and Democracy , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.001.0001
Hart, H. L. A., 1955, “Are There Any Natural Rights?”, The Philosophical Review , 64(2): 175–191. doi:10.2307/2182586
Heinze, Eric, 2016, Hate Speech and Democratic Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198759027.001.0001
Heyman, Steven J., 2009, “Hate Speech, Public Discourse, and the First Amendment”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 158–181 (ch. 9). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0010
Hohfeld, Wesley, 1917, “Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning,” Yale Law Journal 26(8): 710–770.
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 561 U.S. 1 (2010).
Hornsby, Jennifer, 1995, “Disempowered Speech”, Philosophical Topics , 23(2): 127–147. doi:10.5840/philtopics199523211
Howard, Jeffrey W., 2019a, “Dangerous Speech”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 47(2): 208–254. doi:10.1111/papa.12145
–––, 2019b, “Free Speech and Hate Speech”, Annual Review of Political Science , 22: 93–109. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051517-012343
–––, 2021, “Terror, Hate and the Demands of Counter-Speech”, British Journal of Political Science , 51(3): 924–939. doi:10.1017/S000712341900053X
–––, forthcoming a, “The Ethics of Social Media: Why Content Moderation is a Moral Duty”, Journal of Practical Ethics .
Howard, Jeffrey W. and Robert Simpson, forthcoming b, “Freedom of Speech”, in Issues in Political Theory , fifth edition, Catriona McKinnon, Patrick Tomlin, and Robert Jubb (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Husak, Douglas N., 1985, “What Is so Special about [Free] Speech?”, Law and Philosophy , 4(1): 1–15. doi:10.1007/BF00208258
Jacobson, Daniel, 2000, “Mill on Liberty, Speech, and the Free Society”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 29(3): 276–309. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00276.x
Kendrick, Leslie, 2013, “Speech, Intent, and the Chilling Effect”, William & Mary Law Review , 54(5): 1633–1692.
–––, 2017, “Free Speech as a Special Right”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 45(2): 87–117. doi:10.1111/papa.12087
Klonick, Kate, 2018, “The New Governors”, Harvard Law Review 131: 1589–1670.
Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump 928 F.3d 226 (2019).
Kramer, Matthew H., 2021, Freedom of Expression as Self-Restraint , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lakier, Genevieve, 2015, “The Invention of Low-Value Speech”, Harvard Law Review , 128(8): 2166–2233.
Landemore, Hélène, 2013, Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many , Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Langton, Rae, 1993, “Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 22(4): 293–330.
–––, 2018, “The Authority of Hate Speech”, in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law (Volume 3), John Gardner, Leslie Green, and Brian Leiter (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press: ch. 4. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198828174.003.0004
Lazar, Seth, forthcoming, “Legitimacy, Authority, and the Public Value of Explanations”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 10), Steven Wall (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, forthcoming, Connected by Code: Algorithmic Intermediaries and Political Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leiter, Brian, 2016, “The Case against Free Speech”, Sydney Law Review , 38(4): 407–439.
Lepoutre, Maxime, 2021, Democratic Speech in Divided Times , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
MacKinnon, Catharine A., 1984 [1987], “Not a Moral Issue”, Yale Law & Policy Review , 2(2): 321–345. Reprinted in her Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987, 146–162 (ch. 13).
Macklem, Timothy, 2006, Independence of Mind , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199535446.001.0001
Maitra, Ishani, 2009, “Silencing Speech”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 39(2): 309–338. doi:10.1353/cjp.0.0050
Maitra, Ishani and Mary Kate McGowan, 2007, “The Limits of Free Speech: Pornography and the Question of Coverage”, Legal Theory , 13(1): 41–68. doi:10.1017/S1352325207070024
Matsuda, Mari J., 1989, “Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story Legal Storytelling”, Michigan Law Review , 87(8): 2320–2381.
Matsuda, Mari J., Charles R. Lawrence, Richard Delgado, and Kimberlè Williams Crenshaw, 1993, Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment (New Perspectives on Law, Culture, and Society), Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Reprinted 2018, Abingdon: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429502941
McGowan, Mary Kate, 2003, “Conversational Exercitives and the Force of Pornography”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 31(2): 155–189. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00155.x
–––, 2019, Just Words: On Speech and Hidden Harm , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198829706.001.0001
McMahan, Jeff, 2009, Killing in War , (Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics), Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548668.001.0001
Milton, John, 1644, “Areopagitica”, London. [ Milton 1644 available online ]
Meiklejohn, Alexander, 1948, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government , New York: Harper.
–––, 1960, Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People , New York: Harper.
Mill, John Stuart, 1859, On Liberty , London: John W. Parker and Son. [ Mill 1859 available online ]
Nagel, Thomas, 2002, Concealment and Exposure , New York: Oxford University Press.
Pallikkathayil, Japa, 2020, “Free Speech and the Embodied Self”, in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 6), David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 61–84 (ch. 3). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198852636.003.0003
Parekh, Bhikhu, 2012, “Is There a Case for Banning Hate Speech?”, in The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses , Michael Herz and Peter Molnar (eds.), Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 37–56. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139042871.006
Post, Robert C., 1991, “Racist Speech, Democracy, and the First Amendment Free Speech and Religious, Racial, and Sexual Harassment”, William and Mary Law Review , 32(2): 267–328.
–––, 2000, “Reconciling Theory and Doctrine in First Amendment Jurisprudence Symposium of the Law in the Twentieth Century”, California Law Review , 88(6): 2353–2374.
–––, 2009, “Hate Speech”, in Hare and Weinstein 2009: 123–138 (ch. 7). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.003.0008
–––, 2011, “Participatory Democracy as a Theory of Free Speech: A Reply Replies”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 617–632.
Quong, Jonathan, 2011, Liberalism without Perfection , Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199594870.001.0001
R v. Oakes , 1 SCR 103 (1986).
Rawls, John, 2005, Political Liberalism , expanded edition, (Columbia Classics in Philosophy), New York: Columbia University Press.
Raz, Joseph, 1991 [1994], “Free Expression and Personal Identification”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 11(3): 303–324. Collected in his Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 146–169 (ch. 7).
Redish, Martin H., 1982, “Value of Free Speech”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review , 130(3): 591–645.
Rubenfeld, Jed, 2001, “The First Amendment’s Purpose”, Stanford Law Review , 53(4): 767–832.
Scanlon, Thomas, 1972, “A Theory of Freedom of Expression”, Philosophy & Public Affairs , 1(2): 204–226.
–––, 1978, “Freedom of Expression and Categories of Expression ”, University of Pittsburgh Law Review , 40(4): 519–550.
–––, 2008, “Rights and Interests”, in Arguments for a Better World: Essays in Honor of Amartya Sen , Kaushik Basu and Ravi Kanbur (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 68–79 (ch. 5). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239115.003.0006
–––, 2013, “Reply to Wenar”, Journal of Moral Philosophy 10: 400–406
Schauer, Frederick, 1978, “Fear, Risk and the First Amendment: Unraveling the Chilling Effect”, Boston University Law Review , 58(5): 685–732.
–––, 1982, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry , Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 1985, “Slippery Slopes”, Harvard Law Review , 99(2): 361–383.
–––, 1993, “The Phenomenology of Speech and Harm”, Ethics , 103(4): 635–653. doi:10.1086/293546
–––, 2004, “The Boundaries of the First Amendment: A Preliminary Exploration of Constitutional Salience”, Harvard Law Review , 117(6): 1765–1809.
–––, 2009, “Is It Better to Be Safe than Sorry: Free Speech and the Precautionary Principle Free Speech in an Era of Terrorism”, Pepperdine Law Review , 36(2): 301–316.
–––, 2010, “Facts and the First Amendment”, UCLA Law Review , 57(4): 897–920.
–––, 2011a, “On the Relation between Chapters One and Two of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty ”, Capital University Law Review , 39(3): 571–592.
–––, 2011b, “Harm(s) and the First Amendment”, The Supreme Court Review , 2011: 81–111. doi:10.1086/665583
–––, 2015, “Free Speech on Tuesdays”, Law and Philosophy , 34(2): 119–140. doi:10.1007/s10982-014-9220-y
Shiffrin, Seana Valentine, 2014, Speech Matters: On Lying, Morality, and the Law (Carl G. Hempel Lecture Series), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Simpson, Robert Mark, 2016, “Defining ‘Speech’: Subtraction, Addition, and Division”, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , 29(2): 457–494. doi:10.1017/cjlj.2016.20
–––, 2021, “‘Lost, Enfeebled, and Deprived of Its Vital Effect’: Mill’s Exaggerated View of the Relation Between Conflict and Vitality”, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume , 95: 97–114. doi:10.1093/arisup/akab006
Southeastern Promotions Ltd., v. Conrad , 420 U.S. 546 (1975).
Sparrow, Robert and Robert E. Goodin, 2001, “The Competition of Ideas: Market or Garden?”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , 4(2): 45–58. doi:10.1080/13698230108403349
Stone, Adrienne, 2017, “Viewpoint Discrimination, Hate Speech Laws, and the Double-Sided Nature of Freedom of Speech”, Constitutional Commentary , 32(3): 687–696.
Stone, Geoffrey R., 1983, “Content Regulation and the First Amendment”, William and Mary Law Review , 25(2): 189–252.
–––, 1987, “Content-Neutral Restrictions”, University of Chicago Law Review , 54(1): 46–118.
–––, 2004, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism , New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Strauss, David A., 1991, “Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression”, Columbia Law Review , 91(2): 334–371.
Strossen, Nadine, 2018, Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship , New York: Oxford University Press
Sunstein, Cass R., 1986, “Pornography and the First Amendment”, Duke Law Journal , 1986(4): 589–627.
–––, 1989, “Low Value Speech Revisited Commentaries”, Northwestern University Law Review , 83(3): 555–561.
–––, 1993, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech , New York: The Free Press.
–––, 2017, #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tadros, Victor, 2012, “Duty and Liability”, Utilitas , 24(2): 259–277.
Turner, Piers Norris, 2014, “‘Harm’ and Mill’s Harm Principle”, Ethics , 124(2): 299–326. doi:10.1086/673436
Tushnet, Mark, Alan Chen, and Joseph Blocher, 2017, Free Speech beyond Words: The Surprising Reach of the First Amendment , New York: New York University Press.
Volokh, Eugene, 2011, “In Defense of the Marketplace of Ideas/Search for Truth as a Theory of Free Speech Protection Responses”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 595–602.
Vredenburgh, Kate, 2022, “The Right to Explanation”, Journal of Political Philosophy , 30(2): 209–229. doi:10.1111/jopp.12262
Waldron, Jeremy, 1987, “Mill and the Value of Moral Distress”, Political Studies , 35(3): 410–423. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1987.tb00197.x
–––, 2012, The Harm in Hate Speech (The Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures, 2009), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinstein, James, 2011, “Participatory Democracy as the Central Value of American Free Speech Doctrine”, Virginia Law Review , 97(3): 491–514.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Whitten, Suzanne, 2022, A Republican Theory of Free Speech: Critical Civility , Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-78631-1
Whitney, Heather M. and Robert Mark Simpson, 2019, “Search Engines and Free Speech Coverage”, in Free Speech in the Digital Age , Susan J. Brison and Katharine Gelber (eds), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 33–51 (ch. 2). doi:10.1093/oso/9780190883591.003.0003
West, Caroline, 2004 [2022], “Pornography and Censorship”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 edition), Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/pornography-censorship/ >.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) , adopted: 16 December 1966; Entry into force: 23 March 1976.
Free Speech Debate
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University
van Mill, David, “Freedom of Speech”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/freedom-speech/ >. [This was the previous entry on this topic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – see the version history .]

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the editors and anonymous referees of this Encyclopedia for helpful feedback. I am greatly indebted to Robert Mark Simpson for many incisive suggestions, which substantially improved the entry. This entry was written while on a fellowship funded by UK Research & Innovation (grant reference MR/V025600/1); I am thankful to UKRI for the support.

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

CBSE Class 10th
CBSE Class 12th
UP Board 10th
UP Board 12th
Bihar Board 10th
Bihar Board 12th
Top Schools in India
Top Schools in Delhi
Top Schools in Mumbai
Top Schools in Chennai
Top Schools in Hyderabad
Top Schools in Kolkata
Top Schools in Pune
Top Schools in Bangalore

Products & Resources

JEE Main Knockout April
Free Sample Papers
Free Ebooks
NCERT Notes
NCERT Syllabus
NCERT Books
RD Sharma Solutions
Navodaya Vidyalaya Admission 2024-25
NCERT Solutions
NCERT Solutions for Class 12
NCERT Solutions for Class 11
NCERT solutions for Class 10
NCERT solutions for Class 9
NCERT solutions for Class 8
NCERT Solutions for Class 7
JEE Main 2024
JEE Advanced 2024
BITSAT 2024
View All Engineering Exams
Colleges Accepting B.Tech Applications
Top Engineering Colleges in India
Engineering Colleges in India
Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu
Engineering Colleges Accepting JEE Main
Top IITs in India
Top NITs in India
Top IIITs in India
JEE Main College Predictor
JEE Main Rank Predictor
MHT CET College Predictor
AP EAMCET College Predictor
TS EAMCET College Predictor
KCET College Predictor
JEE Advanced College Predictor
View All College Predictors
JEE Main Question Paper
JEE Main Mock Test
JEE Main Registration
JEE Main Syllabus
Download E-Books and Sample Papers
Compare Colleges
B.Tech College Applications
JEE Main Paper 2 Result
MAH MBA CET Exam
View All Management Exams

Colleges & Courses

MBA College Admissions
MBA Colleges in India
Top IIMs Colleges in India
Top Online MBA Colleges in India
MBA Colleges Accepting XAT Score
BBA Colleges in India
XAT College Predictor 2024
SNAP College Predictor 2023
NMAT College Predictor
MAT College Predictor 2024
CMAT College Predictor 2024
CAT Percentile Predictor 2023
CAT 2023 College Predictor
CMAT 2024 Registration
XAT Cut Off 2024
XAT Score vs Percentile 2024
CAT Score Vs Percentile
Download Helpful Ebooks
List of Popular Branches
QnA - Get answers to your doubts
IIM Fees Structure
AIIMS Nursing
Top Medical Colleges in India
Top Medical Colleges in India accepting NEET Score
Medical Colleges accepting NEET
List of Medical Colleges in India
List of AIIMS Colleges In India
Medical Colleges in Maharashtra
Medical Colleges in India Accepting NEET PG
NEET College Predictor
NEET PG College Predictor
NEET MDS College Predictor
DNB CET College Predictor
DNB PDCET College Predictor
NEET Application Form 2024
NEET PG Application Form 2024
NEET Cut off
NEET Online Preparation
Download Helpful E-books
LSAT India 2024
Colleges Accepting Admissions
Top Law Colleges in India
Law College Accepting CLAT Score
List of Law Colleges in India
Top Law Colleges in Delhi
Top Law Collages in Indore
Top Law Colleges in Chandigarh
Top Law Collages in Lucknow

Predictors & E-Books

CLAT College Predictor
MHCET Law ( 5 Year L.L.B) College Predictor
AILET College Predictor
Sample Papers
Compare Law Collages
Careers360 Youtube Channel
CLAT Syllabus 2025
CLAT Previous Year Question Paper
AIBE 18 Result 2023
NID DAT Exam
Pearl Academy Exam

Animation Courses

Animation Courses in India
Animation Courses in Bangalore
Animation Courses in Mumbai
Animation Courses in Pune
Animation Courses in Chennai
Animation Courses in Hyderabad
Design Colleges in India
Fashion Design Colleges in Bangalore
Fashion Design Colleges in Mumbai
Fashion Design Colleges in Pune
Fashion Design Colleges in Delhi
Fashion Design Colleges in Hyderabad
Fashion Design Colleges in India
Top Design Colleges in India
Free Design E-books
List of Branches
Careers360 Youtube channel
NIFT College Predictor
UCEED College Predictor
IPU CET BJMC
JMI Mass Communication Entrance Exam
IIMC Entrance Exam
Media & Journalism colleges in Delhi
Media & Journalism colleges in Bangalore
Media & Journalism colleges in Mumbai
List of Media & Journalism Colleges in India
CA Intermediate
CA Foundation
CS Executive
CS Professional
Difference between CA and CS
Difference between CA and CMA
CA Full form
CMA Full form
CS Full form
CA Salary In India

Top Courses & Careers

Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com)
Master of Commerce (M.Com)
Company Secretary
Cost Accountant
Charted Accountant
Credit Manager
Financial Advisor
Top Commerce Colleges in India
Top Government Commerce Colleges in India
Top Private Commerce Colleges in India
Top M.Com Colleges in Mumbai
Top B.Com Colleges in India
IT Colleges in Tamil Nadu
IT Colleges in Uttar Pradesh
MCA Colleges in India
BCA Colleges in India

Diploma Colleges

Top Diploma Colleges in Maharashtra
UPSC IAS 2024
SSC CGL 2024
IBPS RRB 2024
Previous Year Sample Papers
Free Competition E-books
Sarkari Result
QnA- Get your doubts answered
UPSC Previous Year Sample Papers
CTET Previous Year Sample Papers
SBI Clerk Previous Year Sample Papers
NDA Previous Year Sample Papers

Upcoming Events

NDA Application Form 2024
UPSC IAS Application Form 2024
CDS Application Form 2024
CTET Admit card 2024
HP TET Result 2023
SSC GD Constable Admit Card 2024
UPTET Notification 2024
SBI Clerk Result 2024

Other Exams

SSC CHSL 2024
UP PCS 2024
UGC NET 2024
RRB NTPC 2024
IBPS PO 2024
IBPS Clerk 2024
IBPS SO 2024
Top University in USA
Top University in Canada
Top University in Ireland
Top Universities in UK
Top Universities in Australia
Best MBA Colleges in Abroad
Business Management Studies Colleges

Top Countries

Study in USA
Study in UK
Study in Canada
Study in Australia
Study in Ireland
Study in Germany
Study in China
Study in Europe

Student Visas

Student Visa Canada
Student Visa UK
Student Visa USA
Student Visa Australia
Student Visa Germany
Student Visa New Zealand
Student Visa Ireland
CUET PG 2024
IGNOU B.Ed Admission 2024
DU Admission
UP B.Ed JEE 2024
DDU Entrance Exam
IIT JAM 2024
IGNOU Online Admission 2024
Universities in India
Top Universities in India 2024
Top Colleges in India
Top Universities in Uttar Pradesh 2024
Top Universities in Bihar
Top Universities in Madhya Pradesh 2024
Top Universities in Tamil Nadu 2024
Central Universities in India
CUET PG Admit Card 2024
IGNOU Date Sheet
CUET Mock Test 2024
CUET Application Form 2024
CUET PG Syllabus 2024
CUET Participating Universities 2024
CUET Previous Year Question Paper
CUET Syllabus 2024 for Science Students
E-Books and Sample Papers
CUET Exam Pattern 2024
CUET Exam Date 2024
CUET Syllabus 2024
IGNOU Exam Form 2024
IGNOU Result
CUET PG Courses 2024

Engineering Preparation

Knockout JEE Main 2024
Test Series JEE Main 2024
JEE Main 2024 Rank Booster

Medical Preparation

Knockout NEET 2024
Test Series NEET 2024
Rank Booster NEET 2024

Online Courses

JEE Main One Month Course
NEET One Month Course
IBSAT Free Mock Tests
IIT JEE Foundation Course
Knockout BITSAT 2024
Career Guidance Tool

Top Streams

IT & Software Certification Courses
Engineering and Architecture Certification Courses
Programming And Development Certification Courses
Business and Management Certification Courses
Marketing Certification Courses
Health and Fitness Certification Courses
Design Certification Courses

Specializations

Digital Marketing Certification Courses
Cyber Security Certification Courses
Artificial Intelligence Certification Courses
Business Analytics Certification Courses
Data Science Certification Courses
Cloud Computing Certification Courses
Machine Learning Certification Courses
View All Certification Courses
UG Degree Courses
PG Degree Courses
Short Term Courses
Free Courses
Online Degrees and Diplomas
Compare Courses

Top Providers

Coursera Courses
Udemy Courses
Edx Courses
Swayam Courses
upGrad Courses
Simplilearn Courses
Great Learning Courses

Access premium articles, webinars, resources to make the best decisions for career, course, exams, scholarships, study abroad and much more with

Plan, Prepare & Make the Best Career Choices

Speech on Moral Values

Moral values are the principles and beliefs that shape our behavior and help us distinguish right from wrong. These values guide us in our interactions with others and define the type of person we want to be.

10 Lines Speech on Moral Values

In a world where we are often faced with conflicting information and values, it can be easy to lose sight of what is truly important. This is why it is so important to hold onto and prioritise our moral values.

Values like honesty, kindness, compassion, and respect are not just nice to have, they are essential to building and maintaining healthy relationships with others.

These values are the foundation of trust and understanding and allow us to connect with others on a deeper level.

Moreover, moral values help us make difficult decisions by providing a clear framework for ethical behaviour.

When we face challenging situations, our moral values can help us stay true to ourselves and our beliefs, even in the face of adversity.

Holding onto our moral values allows us to be the best version of ourselves.

When we live our lives in alignment with our values, we experience a sense of inner peace and contentment that cannot be found in material possessions or external achievements.

Moral values are the compass that guides us through life. By prioritising and living according to our values, we can build strong relationships, make ethical decisions, and live a fulfilling life.

Inculcating moral values is a lifelong process, and it requires consistency, patience, and commitment.

It is important to remember that children learn best when they feel safe, loved, and supported, so creating a nurturing environment is crucial to the process.

Short Speech on Moral Values

Long speech on moral values, importance of moral values, moral values for school students.

Moral values are principles and beliefs that guide a person's behaviour and decision-making in distinguishing right from wrong.

How can we inculcate Moral Values

Inculcating moral values is an ongoing process that starts at home and continues throughout life. Here are some ways to help inculcate moral values:

Be a role model | Children learn by observing the behavior of those around them. It is important to model the moral values you want to inculcate in them.

Teach by example | Explain moral values through real-life situations and teach children how to apply these values in their daily lives.

Reinforce positive behaviour | Praise and acknowledge children when they demonstrate moral values and correct them when they don't.

Encourage empathy | Help children develop empathy by encouraging them to put themselves in other people's shoes and consider how their actions might impact others.

Teach responsibility | Encourage children to take responsibility for their actions and hold them accountable for their behaviour.

Foster communication | Encourage open communication and help children develop the skills to express themselves and listen to others.

Provide opportunities for community service | Engaging in community service activities can help children develop a sense of social responsibility and empathy for others.

Use media and literature | Use books, movies, and TV shows to teach moral values and reinforce positive behaviour.

Moral values are the foundation of ethical behaviour and help individuals prioritise what is important in their lives. Examples of moral values include honesty, integrity, respect, kindness, compassion, responsibility, and fairness.

Moral values are the fundamental principles that shape our character and guide our behavior, both towards ourselves and others. They are learned through practice and daily application, and are crucial for personal, social, and spiritual growth.

Moral values are important because they guide our behaviour and decision-making and help us distinguish right from wrong. Here are some of the reasons why moral values are essential:

Provide a sense of direction | Moral values provide a framework for ethical behaviour and help us navigate through life's challenges with a sense of purpose and direction.

Build strong relationships | Values like honesty, respect, and kindness are essential to building and maintaining healthy relationships with others. These values help us connect with others on a deeper level and establish trust and understanding.

Foster empathy and compassion | Moral values encourage empathy and compassion for others and help us develop a sense of social responsibility. This, in turn, helps us create a more just and equitable society.

Develop character and integrity | Living according to our moral values helps us develop strong character and integrity, which are essential to achieving our goals and fulfilling our potential.

Enhance personal growth and fulfilment | Living a life based on moral values can help us find meaning and purpose in life, leading to personal growth and fulfilment.

Honesty | Students should be encouraged to be truthful and sincere in their interactions with others.

Respect | Students should be taught to show respect to their teachers, parents, peers, and all individuals, regardless of their background or beliefs.

Responsibility | Students should be taught to take responsibility for their actions and be accountable for their behaviour.

Kindness | Students should be encouraged to be kind and compassionate towards others, including animals and the environment.

Empathy | Students should be taught to understand and appreciate the feelings and experiences of others and develop empathy towards those who are less fortunate.

Fairness | Students should be taught to be fair and just in their interactions with others and not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, or other factors.

Perseverance | Students should be encouraged to persevere through challenges and not give up easily.

Self-control | Students should be taught to exercise self-control and manage their emotions and impulses.

Gratitude | Students should be encouraged to express gratitude and appreciation for the blessings in their lives.

By embracing these moral values, students can develop strong character, empathy, and social responsibility, and become responsible and ethical individuals. Moral values are closely tied to our sense of purpose in life and our attitude towards others, and can help us overcome selfishness and prioritise the well-being of humanity, society, and the world. Ultimately, values provide the underlying motivation for our actions.

In conclusion, moral values are essential to our personal and social development, guiding our behaviour and decision-making and helping us create a more just and equitable society.

Explore Career Options (By Industry)

Construction
Entertainment
Manufacturing
Information Technology

Bio Medical Engineer

The field of biomedical engineering opens up a universe of expert chances. An Individual in the biomedical engineering career path work in the field of engineering as well as medicine, in order to find out solutions to common problems of the two fields. The biomedical engineering job opportunities are to collaborate with doctors and researchers to develop medical systems, equipment, or devices that can solve clinical problems. Here we will be discussing jobs after biomedical engineering, how to get a job in biomedical engineering, biomedical engineering scope, and salary.

Data Administrator

Database professionals use software to store and organise data such as financial information, and customer shipping records. Individuals who opt for a career as data administrators ensure that data is available for users and secured from unauthorised sales. DB administrators may work in various types of industries. It may involve computer systems design, service firms, insurance companies, banks and hospitals.

Ethical Hacker

A career as ethical hacker involves various challenges and provides lucrative opportunities in the digital era where every giant business and startup owns its cyberspace on the world wide web. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path try to find the vulnerabilities in the cyber system to get its authority. If he or she succeeds in it then he or she gets its illegal authority. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path then steal information or delete the file that could affect the business, functioning, or services of the organization.

Data Analyst

The invention of the database has given fresh breath to the people involved in the data analytics career path. Analysis refers to splitting up a whole into its individual components for individual analysis. Data analysis is a method through which raw data are processed and transformed into information that would be beneficial for user strategic thinking.

Data are collected and examined to respond to questions, evaluate hypotheses or contradict theories. It is a tool for analyzing, transforming, modeling, and arranging data with useful knowledge, to assist in decision-making and methods, encompassing various strategies, and is used in different fields of business, research, and social science.

Geothermal Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as geothermal engineers are the professionals involved in the processing of geothermal energy. The responsibilities of geothermal engineers may vary depending on the workplace location. Those who work in fields design facilities to process and distribute geothermal energy. They oversee the functioning of machinery used in the field.

Remote Sensing Technician

Individuals who opt for a career as a remote sensing technician possess unique personalities. Remote sensing analysts seem to be rational human beings, they are strong, independent, persistent, sincere, realistic and resourceful. Some of them are analytical as well, which means they are intelligent, introspective and inquisitive.

Remote sensing scientists use remote sensing technology to support scientists in fields such as community planning, flight planning or the management of natural resources. Analysing data collected from aircraft, satellites or ground-based platforms using statistical analysis software, image analysis software or Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a significant part of their work. Do you want to learn how to become remote sensing technician? There's no need to be concerned; we've devised a simple remote sensing technician career path for you. Scroll through the pages and read.

Geotechnical engineer

The role of geotechnical engineer starts with reviewing the projects needed to define the required material properties. The work responsibilities are followed by a site investigation of rock, soil, fault distribution and bedrock properties on and below an area of interest. The investigation is aimed to improve the ground engineering design and determine their engineering properties that include how they will interact with, on or in a proposed construction.

The role of geotechnical engineer in mining includes designing and determining the type of foundations, earthworks, and or pavement subgrades required for the intended man-made structures to be made. Geotechnical engineering jobs are involved in earthen and concrete dam construction projects, working under a range of normal and extreme loading conditions.

Cartographer

How fascinating it is to represent the whole world on just a piece of paper or a sphere. With the help of maps, we are able to represent the real world on a much smaller scale. Individuals who opt for a career as a cartographer are those who make maps. But, cartography is not just limited to maps, it is about a mixture of art , science , and technology. As a cartographer, not only you will create maps but use various geodetic surveys and remote sensing systems to measure, analyse, and create different maps for political, cultural or educational purposes.

Budget Analyst

Budget analysis, in a nutshell, entails thoroughly analyzing the details of a financial budget. The budget analysis aims to better understand and manage revenue. Budget analysts assist in the achievement of financial targets, the preservation of profitability, and the pursuit of long-term growth for a business. Budget analysts generally have a bachelor's degree in accounting, finance, economics, or a closely related field. Knowledge of Financial Management is of prime importance in this career.

Product Manager

A Product Manager is a professional responsible for product planning and marketing. He or she manages the product throughout the Product Life Cycle, gathering and prioritising the product. A product manager job description includes defining the product vision and working closely with team members of other departments to deliver winning products.

Investment Banker

An Investment Banking career involves the invention and generation of capital for other organizations, governments, and other entities. Individuals who opt for a career as Investment Bankers are the head of a team dedicated to raising capital by issuing bonds. Investment bankers are termed as the experts who have their fingers on the pulse of the current financial and investing climate. Students can pursue various Investment Banker courses, such as Banking and Insurance , and Economics to opt for an Investment Banking career path.

Underwriter

An underwriter is a person who assesses and evaluates the risk of insurance in his or her field like mortgage, loan, health policy, investment, and so on and so forth. The underwriter career path does involve risks as analysing the risks means finding out if there is a way for the insurance underwriter jobs to recover the money from its clients. If the risk turns out to be too much for the company then in the future it is an underwriter who will be held accountable for it. Therefore, one must carry out his or her job with a lot of attention and diligence.

Finance Executive

Operations manager.

Individuals in the operations manager jobs are responsible for ensuring the efficiency of each department to acquire its optimal goal. They plan the use of resources and distribution of materials. The operations manager's job description includes managing budgets, negotiating contracts, and performing administrative tasks.

Bank Probationary Officer (PO)

Welding engineer.

Welding Engineer Job Description: A Welding Engineer work involves managing welding projects and supervising welding teams. He or she is responsible for reviewing welding procedures, processes and documentation. A career as Welding Engineer involves conducting failure analyses and causes on welding issues.

Transportation Planner

A career as Transportation Planner requires technical application of science and technology in engineering, particularly the concepts, equipment and technologies involved in the production of products and services. In fields like land use, infrastructure review, ecological standards and street design, he or she considers issues of health, environment and performance. A Transportation Planner assigns resources for implementing and designing programmes. He or she is responsible for assessing needs, preparing plans and forecasts and compliance with regulations.

An expert in plumbing is aware of building regulations and safety standards and works to make sure these standards are upheld. Testing pipes for leakage using air pressure and other gauges, and also the ability to construct new pipe systems by cutting, fitting, measuring and threading pipes are some of the other more involved aspects of plumbing. Individuals in the plumber career path are self-employed or work for a small business employing less than ten people, though some might find working for larger entities or the government more desirable.

Construction Manager

Individuals who opt for a career as construction managers have a senior-level management role offered in construction firms. Responsibilities in the construction management career path are assigning tasks to workers, inspecting their work, and coordinating with other professionals including architects, subcontractors, and building services engineers.

Urban Planner

Urban Planning careers revolve around the idea of developing a plan to use the land optimally, without affecting the environment. Urban planning jobs are offered to those candidates who are skilled in making the right use of land to distribute the growing population, to create various communities.

Urban planning careers come with the opportunity to make changes to the existing cities and towns. They identify various community needs and make short and long-term plans accordingly.

Highway Engineer

Highway Engineer Job Description: A Highway Engineer is a civil engineer who specialises in planning and building thousands of miles of roads that support connectivity and allow transportation across the country. He or she ensures that traffic management schemes are effectively planned concerning economic sustainability and successful implementation.

Environmental Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as an environmental engineer are construction professionals who utilise the skills and knowledge of biology, soil science, chemistry and the concept of engineering to design and develop projects that serve as solutions to various environmental problems.

Naval Architect

A Naval Architect is a professional who designs, produces and repairs safe and sea-worthy surfaces or underwater structures. A Naval Architect stays involved in creating and designing ships, ferries, submarines and yachts with implementation of various principles such as gravity, ideal hull form, buoyancy and stability.

Orthotist and Prosthetist

Orthotists and Prosthetists are professionals who provide aid to patients with disabilities. They fix them to artificial limbs (prosthetics) and help them to regain stability. There are times when people lose their limbs in an accident. In some other occasions, they are born without a limb or orthopaedic impairment. Orthotists and prosthetists play a crucial role in their lives with fixing them to assistive devices and provide mobility.

Veterinary Doctor

Pathologist.

A career in pathology in India is filled with several responsibilities as it is a medical branch and affects human lives. The demand for pathologists has been increasing over the past few years as people are getting more aware of different diseases. Not only that, but an increase in population and lifestyle changes have also contributed to the increase in a pathologist’s demand. The pathology careers provide an extremely huge number of opportunities and if you want to be a part of the medical field you can consider being a pathologist. If you want to know more about a career in pathology in India then continue reading this article.

Speech Therapist

Gynaecologist.

Gynaecology can be defined as the study of the female body. The job outlook for gynaecology is excellent since there is evergreen demand for one because of their responsibility of dealing with not only women’s health but also fertility and pregnancy issues. Although most women prefer to have a women obstetrician gynaecologist as their doctor, men also explore a career as a gynaecologist and there are ample amounts of male doctors in the field who are gynaecologists and aid women during delivery and childbirth.

An oncologist is a specialised doctor responsible for providing medical care to patients diagnosed with cancer. He or she uses several therapies to control the cancer and its effect on the human body such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy and biopsy. An oncologist designs a treatment plan based on a pathology report after diagnosing the type of cancer and where it is spreading inside the body.

Audiologist

The audiologist career involves audiology professionals who are responsible to treat hearing loss and proactively preventing the relevant damage. Individuals who opt for a career as an audiologist use various testing strategies with the aim to determine if someone has a normal sensitivity to sounds or not. After the identification of hearing loss, a hearing doctor is required to determine which sections of the hearing are affected, to what extent they are affected, and where the wound causing the hearing loss is found. As soon as the hearing loss is identified, the patients are provided with recommendations for interventions and rehabilitation such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, and appropriate medical referrals. While audiology is a branch of science that studies and researches hearing, balance, and related disorders.

Hospital Administrator

The hospital Administrator is in charge of organising and supervising the daily operations of medical services and facilities. This organising includes managing of organisation’s staff and its members in service, budgets, service reports, departmental reporting and taking reminders of patient care and services.

For an individual who opts for a career as an actor, the primary responsibility is to completely speak to the character he or she is playing and to persuade the crowd that the character is genuine by connecting with them and bringing them into the story. This applies to significant roles and littler parts, as all roles join to make an effective creation. Here in this article, we will discuss how to become an actor in India, actor exams, actor salary in India, and actor jobs.

Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats create and direct original routines for themselves, in addition to developing interpretations of existing routines. The work of circus acrobats can be seen in a variety of performance settings, including circus, reality shows, sports events like the Olympics, movies and commercials. Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats must be prepared to face rejections and intermittent periods of work. The creativity of acrobats may extend to other aspects of the performance. For example, acrobats in the circus may work with gym trainers, celebrities or collaborate with other professionals to enhance such performance elements as costume and or maybe at the teaching end of the career.

Video Game Designer

Career as a video game designer is filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. A video game designer is someone who is involved in the process of creating a game from day one. He or she is responsible for fulfilling duties like designing the character of the game, the several levels involved, plot, art and similar other elements. Individuals who opt for a career as a video game designer may also write the codes for the game using different programming languages.

Depending on the video game designer job description and experience they may also have to lead a team and do the early testing of the game in order to suggest changes and find loopholes.

Radio Jockey

Radio Jockey is an exciting, promising career and a great challenge for music lovers. If you are really interested in a career as radio jockey, then it is very important for an RJ to have an automatic, fun, and friendly personality. If you want to get a job done in this field, a strong command of the language and a good voice are always good things. Apart from this, in order to be a good radio jockey, you will also listen to good radio jockeys so that you can understand their style and later make your own by practicing.

A career as radio jockey has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. If you want to know more about a career as radio jockey, and how to become a radio jockey then continue reading the article.

Choreographer

The word “choreography" actually comes from Greek words that mean “dance writing." Individuals who opt for a career as a choreographer create and direct original dances, in addition to developing interpretations of existing dances. A Choreographer dances and utilises his or her creativity in other aspects of dance performance. For example, he or she may work with the music director to select music or collaborate with other famous choreographers to enhance such performance elements as lighting, costume and set design.

Videographer

Multimedia specialist.

A multimedia specialist is a media professional who creates, audio, videos, graphic image files, computer animations for multimedia applications. He or she is responsible for planning, producing, and maintaining websites and applications.

Social Media Manager

A career as social media manager involves implementing the company’s or brand’s marketing plan across all social media channels. Social media managers help in building or improving a brand’s or a company’s website traffic, build brand awareness, create and implement marketing and brand strategy. Social media managers are key to important social communication as well.

Copy Writer

In a career as a copywriter, one has to consult with the client and understand the brief well. A career as a copywriter has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. Several new mediums of advertising are opening therefore making it a lucrative career choice. Students can pursue various copywriter courses such as Journalism , Advertising , Marketing Management . Here, we have discussed how to become a freelance copywriter, copywriter career path, how to become a copywriter in India, and copywriting career outlook.

Careers in journalism are filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. One cannot afford to miss out on the details. As it is the small details that provide insights into a story. Depending on those insights a journalist goes about writing a news article. A journalism career can be stressful at times but if you are someone who is passionate about it then it is the right choice for you. If you want to know more about the media field and journalist career then continue reading this article.

For publishing books, newspapers, magazines and digital material, editorial and commercial strategies are set by publishers. Individuals in publishing career paths make choices about the markets their businesses will reach and the type of content that their audience will be served. Individuals in book publisher careers collaborate with editorial staff, designers, authors, and freelance contributors who develop and manage the creation of content.

In a career as a vlogger, one generally works for himself or herself. However, once an individual has gained viewership there are several brands and companies that approach them for paid collaboration. It is one of those fields where an individual can earn well while following his or her passion.

Ever since internet costs got reduced the viewership for these types of content has increased on a large scale. Therefore, a career as a vlogger has a lot to offer. If you want to know more about the Vlogger eligibility, roles and responsibilities then continue reading the article.

Individuals in the editor career path is an unsung hero of the news industry who polishes the language of the news stories provided by stringers, reporters, copywriters and content writers and also news agencies. Individuals who opt for a career as an editor make it more persuasive, concise and clear for readers. In this article, we will discuss the details of the editor's career path such as how to become an editor in India, editor salary in India and editor skills and qualities.

Linguistic meaning is related to language or Linguistics which is the study of languages. A career as a linguistic meaning, a profession that is based on the scientific study of language, and it's a very broad field with many specialities. Famous linguists work in academia, researching and teaching different areas of language, such as phonetics (sounds), syntax (word order) and semantics (meaning).

Other researchers focus on specialities like computational linguistics, which seeks to better match human and computer language capacities, or applied linguistics, which is concerned with improving language education. Still, others work as language experts for the government, advertising companies, dictionary publishers and various other private enterprises. Some might work from home as freelance linguists. Philologist, phonologist, and dialectician are some of Linguist synonym. Linguists can study French , German , Italian .

Public Relation Executive

Travel journalist.

The career of a travel journalist is full of passion, excitement and responsibility. Journalism as a career could be challenging at times, but if you're someone who has been genuinely enthusiastic about all this, then it is the best decision for you. Travel journalism jobs are all about insightful, artfully written, informative narratives designed to cover the travel industry. Travel Journalist is someone who explores, gathers and presents information as a news article.

Quality Controller

A quality controller plays a crucial role in an organisation. He or she is responsible for performing quality checks on manufactured products. He or she identifies the defects in a product and rejects the product.

A quality controller records detailed information about products with defects and sends it to the supervisor or plant manager to take necessary actions to improve the production process.

Production Manager

Merchandiser.

A QA Lead is in charge of the QA Team. The role of QA Lead comes with the responsibility of assessing services and products in order to determine that he or she meets the quality standards. He or she develops, implements and manages test plans.

Metallurgical Engineer

A metallurgical engineer is a professional who studies and produces materials that bring power to our world. He or she extracts metals from ores and rocks and transforms them into alloys, high-purity metals and other materials used in developing infrastructure, transportation and healthcare equipment.

Azure Administrator

An Azure Administrator is a professional responsible for implementing, monitoring, and maintaining Azure Solutions. He or she manages cloud infrastructure service instances and various cloud servers as well as sets up public and private cloud systems.

AWS Solution Architect

An AWS Solution Architect is someone who specializes in developing and implementing cloud computing systems. He or she has a good understanding of the various aspects of cloud computing and can confidently deploy and manage their systems. He or she troubleshoots the issues and evaluates the risk from the third party.

Computer Programmer

Careers in computer programming primarily refer to the systematic act of writing code and moreover include wider computer science areas. The word 'programmer' or 'coder' has entered into practice with the growing number of newly self-taught tech enthusiasts. Computer programming careers involve the use of designs created by software developers and engineers and transforming them into commands that can be implemented by computers. These commands result in regular usage of social media sites, word-processing applications and browsers.

ITSM Manager

Information security manager.

Individuals in the information security manager career path involves in overseeing and controlling all aspects of computer security. The IT security manager job description includes planning and carrying out security measures to protect the business data and information from corruption, theft, unauthorised access, and deliberate attack

Business Intelligence Developer

Applications for admissions are open..

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Chemistry formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

Get up to 90% scholarship on NEET, JEE & Foundation courses

ALLEN JEE Exam Prep

Start your JEE preparation with ALLEN

NEET 2024 Most scoring concepts

Just Study 32% of the NEET syllabus and Score upto 100% marks

JEE Main high scoring chapters and topics

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Study 40% syllabus and score upto 100% marks in JEE

NEET previous year papers with solutions

Solve NEET previous years question papers & check your preparedness

Everything about Education

Latest updates, Exclusive Content, Webinars and more.

Download Careers360 App's

Regular exam updates, QnA, Predictors, College Applications & E-books now on your Mobile

Cetifications

We Appeared in

Speech on Respect

Respect is a feeling of appreciation or admiration towards an individual, group, community or a specific action and behavior. It is important in our society today that we give respect to others in order to gain respect from them. There can be various functions in schools, colleges, organizations or community when you may be requested to deliver ‘speech on respect’. We have shared here different types of respect speech which you can use as a sample and prepare your own speech. Our short speech on respect can be used at school level and long speech on respect can be used at organizational or greater level. The language of these respect speech are kept simple for anyone to easily understand. The concept is contemporary and connected to today’s problem which makes our speech unique and impressive.

Respect Speech

Speech on respect 1.

Respected Principal, Teachers and My Dear Students!

First of all, thank you for being a part of this celebration. We have gathered here to celebrate the annual day of our school and like every year, we will try our best to make this celebration the most memorable for all of you.

I would also like to thank the organizers for giving me the opportunity to host the program. As you all know our school is highly recognized on the international platform and it is one the top 10 schools in the state. The students who pass out from our school get admission in popular colleges and universities and hold quite decent positions in the highly recognized organizations.

The intelligence and general knowledge of our students are highly commendable. I would also urge each of the students of this school to cultivate respect for others. Respect as you all know is an encouraging feeling of admiration for an individual or entity. It shows the honor and kindness shown by a person towards others. It is very important that we respect each other for bringing harmony in the society and always remember that respect cannot be demanded, but earned. And, this respect is earned through our noble deeds and actions.

While it is important that we respect everyone we meet in our lives, it is equally important that we perform such deeds that can help us earn respect. Respect is the greatest asset which a person earns through his behavior and activities done for the office, home or for the community.

It is important that parents teach their kids to respect their elders, grandparents, teachers, their fellow friends and everyone living in their surroundings. Only then we will be able to build a positive society. Nowadays, people lose temper on small issues and indulge into altercations which turn out to be violent sometimes. If children are taught to forgive negligible matters and learn to respect the people around, they would grow up to be happier children.

It is also important for all of us to respect our atmosphere. We should be mindful not to throw garbage in the public place such as roads, parks, footpaths, etc. Children learn what they see; thus good habits must be inculcated by their respective parents and relatives of the children.

I would also like to focus on ‘respect for culture’. I understand that the world is getting globalized and countries are exchanging art, talents, culture, and traditions with each other. But that doesn’t allow anyone to disrespect our Indian culture. Indian culture is the oldest and one of the richest in the world. Today’s children are the future of our nation and thus they must ensure that people across the world respect India.

There is no specific definition of the term ‘respect’ nor is there any formula that would help you respect others. We respect those whom we love. But at times, we come across such people whom we must show respect without expecting anything in return. For e.g. if you are sitting while traveling in a public transport and you come across a disabled person; you must show respect and offer your seat to that person.

Such small deeds would help you earn a lot of respect in the society. Above all, you would start respecting yourself which would always help you lead your life positively.

Thank you for listening to me with so much patience. I wish all the very best to each one of you!

Speech on Respect 2

I welcome all of you to the program titled ‘Give respect in order to earn respect’. Great thanks to the organizers and supporters; without your support, this wouldn’t have been possible.

As you all know, our organization is a charity organization and we work for the old-age people who are outcasts, overlooked or left behind by their relatives. I have been associated with this organization for the last 10 years, since its inception. In these 10 years, the majority of the cases I have come across are related to the senior citizens disowned by their own son/s and family. This sounds strange in a country like India where we talk about preserving our culture, tradition, religion, and ethnicity.

We share numerous messages and quotations on the Parents’ Day, Father’s Day or Mother’s Day, but in reality we lack miserably on the basic ethics and morality. Respecting your parents is not a duty or obligation, it must, in fact, be your religion. Our parents apart from bringing us in this world do so much for us. They fulfill every need of their children and struggle every day to bring a smile on their faces. But when they grow old and when they need us the most, we get so occupied with ourselves that we hardly have time for them and this is the reason why there are so many old-age homes across the world.

My father always says that youngsters gave a lot of respect for seniors in the earlier days. In those days, the youngsters would not sit in front of their elders, forget about smoking or drinking. Sadly, the culture and consciousness of respecting one another are vanishing rapidly in our society in the present times.

In the name of privacy, we indulge in petty activities such as smoking, intoxication, drinking, etc. In the name of freedom, we stay out the entire night, don’t bother to inform our elders, skip meals and vanish for days and weeks without keeping anyone in the loop. This all happen because a majority of us have lost the sense of responsibility. We are becoming more and more impatient and have created a shell around us. If our elders try to knock that shell, we lose patience and behave irrationally like shouting, throwing objects, etc.

I would also like to point out the role of social media towards this transformation. Not that I am blaming the social platform for anything, but the fact remains that majority of people who use social media have become ‘disturb me not’ kind of people. Most of the men who come back home from a tiring day prefer checking out their instant chat messages and profiles of friends on social media instead of spending time with their family. Slowly this is becoming the tradition of almost every home and children today are growing up in this environment. Such children when grow older would not have respect for the real, but virtual people.

Until we develop a sense of love and responsibility towards others, we will not be able to respect others. Respecting others is not a favor you would do to anyone; in fact, you must give respect to others for getting respect in return. The sooner we realize it, the better.

Speech on Respect 3

Good Morning Respected Principal, Respected Teachers and My Dear Friends!

First of all, I would like to welcome all of you to this inspirational program and thank to all the team members who helped each other for organizing this event. I am Vaani from class XII and it is my honor to host this event. Today, this event has been organized especially for the students and their parents. This event is based on the importance of respect in our lives. For today students have prepared play, speeches and many more activities. So before beginning with their performances I would like to deliver a speech on respect as the starting of this event.

As we all know that in today’s world everybody is running after money. Everybody knows that money plays an important role in fulfilling our requirements but, money is also a mode of acquiring a good status in the society and a good status is a mode of acquiring respect among people. So, we can say that respect is a main objective that most of the people have in their whole lives. But we could not consider money as the only means of attaining respect because our behavior and what we do with other people tells us about our respect among them.

Almost everybody in this world wants to get respect. If we want to gain respect then it is very important other people respect also. For gaining respect, a person should understand that he could not ask everybody for respect but he has to earn it because respect can only be earned. A person could gain respect by doing good deeds or by such activities that have the potential of creating respect for him into another’s mind.

If we are talking about respect, then there are some important people in everyone’s life to whom we give so much respect such as our respected parents, grandparents, teachers, etc. These people hold a very important place in our life and in the heart as well. They are the most respected people in our lives.

Despite all these respected people in our lives, there are some people who by their inspirational lives and good deeds forces us to give them respect. Yes! I am talking about our respected soldiers and police because they are the reason for how our country is retaining freedom and independence. They are risking their lives for saving our lives. It is truly not an easy task of protecting such a huge country like ours. They are one of the biggest reasons behind our country’s respect in the entire world.

On this note, I would like conclude my speech and extend special thanks to our Hon’ble Principal ma’am, Teachers for supporting us for organizing this event as well as to all the parents who joined us in this event and for giving this event a great success. I would also like to thank my team members who organized this event with a unity.

Thank you and I wish you all a great day ahead!

Speech on Respect 4

Good Morning Respected Principal Ma’am, Manager Sir, Professors and My Dear Friends!

Today our college has organized a debate competition for all the students. I am Vaanika and it is my pleasure to host this competition. This debate competition has been especially organized for the students so that it will help them in conquering their hesitation and fear. The topic for today’s debate competition is ‘Respect Can Only Be Earned’. As we know that one team has to defend this line and another has to go against. But before moving further, I want to say a few words about respect.

As everybody knows that respect is something that almost everybody wants to have. The very important thing that every person should know is that if we want respect than we have to give respect to others also. Every person in this world gains respect on the basis of his/her deeds. If a person has a good behavior or a helping nature then it automatically forces other people to give him respect.

As we know that there are few most important people in our life to whom we should give respect. Yes, I am talking about our parents, teachers, grandparents and many other respected people around us. They are the one who teaches us how to give respect and how to gain respect. We respect our parents because they are the reason for our existence in this world and they do every possible struggle for us to keep us happy. Grandparents also play an important role in our lives. They are known as the most respective people in the house. Most of the grandparents are used to and also loves to take care of their grandchildren. During childhood, mostly children get more attached with their grandparents. But unfortunately, most of the parents and grandparents are neglected by their own children or grandchildren and they have to live their life in the old age homes. This is one of the most painful behave of the children who overlook their parents and grandparents at the time they need their support. Apart from getting respect from their children, they are overlooked and have to go to the old age homes.

Among all these respected people in our life, teachers also hold a very important place. A teacher shows the correct path to his student that leads the student to success. It is quite impossible to attain success without anybody’s guidance and there is no big guide in this world then a teacher. A good teacher makes his best possible efforts to make his student’s future bright. But after having a bright future, most of the students forget to thank their teachers. One should never forget his/her parents, teachers and every person from whom they supported.

So, if we really want to gain respect then firstly we have to respect others and especially our elders including parents, teachers and other elder people.

On this note, I would like to conclude my speech and extend special thanks to our hon’ble principal ma’am for giving us this opportunity to express our views in front of everybody.

Best farewell speech for outgoing students, farewell speech for colleague, farewell speech for teacher, farewell speech for seniors, farewell speech for boss, gandhi jayanti speech.

Respect in the Workplace: Why It’s Important and How To Achieve It

Updated: March 11, 2024

Published: October 19, 2023

What does it mean to show respect in the workplace? Is it calling your leaders Mr. and Ms.? Or maybe it’s listening without interrupting others, or being agreeable to your managers?

Respect in the workplace: two hands shaking.

It’s common for employees to feel that it’s more important to respect their bosses than their peers. After all, their manager can strip them of their position in the company.

But that doesn’t mean it’s not just as important to respect your co-workers. Allowing disrespect between team members can lead to all sorts of issues for the company, even detracting from its bottom line.

Table of contents:

What is respect in the workplace?

Why it’s important to promote respect in the workplace, how to show respect in the workplace, respect in the workplace examples.

Respect in the workplace is about treating co-workers and leaders courteously and fairly, which includes valuing their beliefs, contributions, and ideas. Respect in a work setting extends beyond employees showing respect to leadership — it includes respecting everyone in the workplace, from the mailroom staff to the boardroom executives.

Respect is the foundation of a healthy and thriving organizational culture, where employees feel valued, supported, and empowered to bring their authentic selves to work. Unfortunately, recent statistics highlight the need to foster respect in the workplace.

Employees feel like they can’t be themselves at work

According to an Emtrain survey, 56% of employees feel they can't be authentic at work. When employees need to hide or suppress their true identities, it can harm their well-being, job satisfaction, and overall performance. Creating an environment where individuals feel safe and respected for who they are is essential for personal and professional growth.

Co-workers lack empathy for one another

Empathy is the ability to understand and share in the feelings of others. In the workplace, it can foster positive relationships and effective communication. Yet only 37% of employees believe people in their workplace show empathy — a concerningly low figure in a time when diversity and inclusion are front and center in many organizations. The more diverse a workplace, the more empathy workers need to keep the company functional. If they can’t understand (or try to understand) different perspectives and beliefs, then it’ll only hurt your company's culture and image.

More conflicts in the workplace

Your words can cut just as deeply as your actions. Employees who don’t understand the impact their words and actions have on those around them can cause tremendous harm to their co-workers’ productivity and mental well-being. And yet, as of 2021, only 40% of employees agree that their co-workers understand this impact.

When individuals are unaware of how their behavior affects others, it can lead to misunderstandings, conflicts, and a toxic work environment. Promoting respect involves cultivating an awareness of the power of words and actions, and encouraging employees to be mindful of their impact on their colleagues.

Beyond these statistics, there are several other reasons to promote respect in the workplace:

Increased productivity: A respectful work environment makes it easier for teams to collaborate and communicate with one another. Why? Because when employees feel respected, they’re more motivated to contribute their best efforts.
Enhanced employee engagement: Respectful treatment of employees creates a sense of value and belonging. When employees feel respected, they’re more engaged in their work, committed to the organization’s goals, and willing to go the extra mile.
Improved morale: When you show recognition and respect to employees, it boosts morale and builds a positive atmosphere. This gives workers higher job satisfaction and a sense of pride in their work.
Reduced turnover: Disrespected employees don’t stick around long. This increases turnover rates and costs you more as you have to recruit, onboard, and train new hires. But without fixing the underlying problem, it’s a never-ending loop of disruption and instability.
Enhanced creativity and innovation: Respectful environments encourage diverse perspectives, ideas, and experiences. When employees feel respected, they’re more open to sharing their thoughts openly without fear of ridicule, leading to increased creativity, innovation, and problem-solving.
Stronger teamwork and collaboration: When employees feel respected, they’re more open to cooperating with co-workers and willing to consider diverse viewpoints, leading to stronger teamwork and better outcomes.
Better customer service: Well-respected employees are happier and more willing to be helpful — not just to their co-workers, but to your customers as well. If you have customer-facing employees, then they’re more likely to provide exceptional customer service when they themselves feel respected in the workplace.

There are many ways leaders and teams can show respect in the workplace. Here are several tips to make respect front and center in your organization:

Practice active listening: When talking with colleagues, actively listen to their ideas, opinions, and concerns. Don’t just hear them — listen . Avoid interrupting or dismissing their thoughts, and show genuine interest in what they’re saying.
Use inclusive language: Be mindful of your language when communicating with others. Avoid making assumptions or using derogatory terms that may offend or exclude individuals based on their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or other characteristics.
Value diversity and inclusion: Recognize and appreciate the diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences of your colleagues. Embrace different ideas and viewpoints, and actively seek out opportunities to learn from others who may have different perspectives than your own.
Give credit where it’s due: Acknowledge and credit your colleagues for their contributions and achievements. Avoid taking credit for someone else’s work, and recognize their efforts publicly when appropriate.
Be mindful of personal boundaries: Respect your colleagues’ personal boundaries and privacy. Avoid prying into personal matters or engaging in gossip.
Be mindful of your tone and body language: Pay attention to your tone of voice and body language when interacting with others. Ensure nonverbal cues are respectful and convey a positive attitude. Avoid aggressive or dismissive gestures and maintain a professional demeanor.
Offer constructive feedback: When providing feedback to colleagues, be constructive, but respectful. Focus on specific behaviors or actions, not personal attacks. Offer suggestions for improvement and be open to receiving feedback in return. When possible, don’t just highlight what is wrong with a project or deliverable, but instead also mention what you think was done well.
Respect work-life balance: Recognize and respect the boundaries between work and personal life. Avoid expecting or demanding excessive work hours or intruding on personal time. Encourage a healthy work-life balance for yourself and your colleagues.
Be mindful of cultural differences: In a diverse workplace, be aware of and respect cultural differences. Educate yourself about different customs, traditions, and practices to avoid unintentionally offending or excluding others.

What does respect look like in the workplace? Here are three examples:

Example 1: Active listening during meetings

Active listening allows everyone to feel heard and valued. When a team member actively listens during meetings or one-on-one conversations, it demonstrates their respect for others’ ideas and perspectives. This means maintaining eye contact, asking clarifying questions, and responding thoughtfully. Active listening not only encourages open dialogue but also fosters a culture of inclusivity and collaboration.

Pro Tip: To encourage active listening in your workplace, implement a “listening buddy” system. Pair team members during meetings and ask them to summarize each other’s points. This practice reinforces the importance of listening and ensures everyone feels heard and understood.

Example 2: Appreciating diverse backgrounds and experiences

Respect in the workplace goes beyond treating others with kindness and courtesy. It also involves embracing and appreciating the diverse backgrounds and experiences each team member brings. This will foster a culture of inclusivity and encourage creativity.

Pro Tip: To cultivate a workplace that appreciates diversity, organize team-building activities encouraging employees to share their cultural traditions, hobbies, or personal experiences. This can create a sense of belonging and understanding among team members, fostering a respectful environment where everyone feels valued.

Example 3: Constructive feedback and growth mindset

Feedback is an opportunity for growth and improvement, not just constructive criticism. When team members provide constructive feedback respectfully, it shows they care about each other’s professional development and success. They focus on specific behaviors or actions, offer suggestions for improvement, and provide support to help their colleagues excel.

Pro Tip: To promote a culture of constructive feedback, implement regular feedback sessions or peer-to-peer coaching programs. Encourage employees to provide feedback using the “sandwich method”:

Start with a positive comment, provide constructive criticism, and end with another positive comment. This approach balances feedback, so it’s always respectful and supportive.

Remember, promoting respect in the workplace is an ongoing effort that requires continuous self-reflection and awareness. By practicing these tips, you can contribute to a positive and respectful work environment for yourself and your teams.

hbspt.cta._relativeUrls=true;hbspt.cta.load(53, 'ad22bdd9-fd50-4b35-a4f5-7586f5a61a1e', {"useNewLoader":"true","region":"na1"});

What did you think of this article .

Give Feedback

Don't forget to share this post!

Mutual Respect: What It Is and How To Achieve It in the Workplace

Mastering Professional Communication: The Secret Ingredient of Business Success

5 Types of Business Etiquette

25 Client Gifts that Keep Your Company Top of Mind All Year

The Necessity of Sales Integrity and 4 Keys to Achieve It

8 Ethical Behaviors to Live and Sell by in Sales

Business Etiquette: The Ultimate Guide

A Visual Guide to International Business Etiquette [Infographic]

Outline your company's sales strategy in one simple, coherent plan.

Powerful and easy-to-use sales software that drives productivity, enables customer connection, and supports growing sales orgs

Join us for JOURNAL HABITS 2024

The value of respect in the workplace.

Is Respectful Communication Worth the Time and Effort At Work?

Recent social movements have demanded public attention showcasing those who live and have lived sidelined from respectful behaviors and engagement. Protests, unrest, walkouts, and the like emphasize the need for organizations to evaluate their policies and, more importantly, their leadership’s demonstrated behavior of what policies they publish.

That leaves us with many questions and certainly a wide variety of topics to cover. Today, however, let’s talk about the value (business value) of inclusive speech and respectful communication, to your business or organization.

Is the Cost Worth the Value?

It’s no easy task to change organizational culture and behavior. And let’s face it, that is an understatement. The cost of research, leadership education, policy formation and distribution, employee training, and accountable processes to ensure policies are respected cost money, and usually a good deal of money. But is the cost worth the value?

Let me introduce a research piece published this year by a scholarly quartet of university researchers from different institutions entitled: The Effect of Respect: Respectful Communication at Work Drives Resiliency, Engagement, and Job Satisfaction among Early Career Employees.

The paper explores concepts of respectful engagement, autonomous respect, and occupational resilience. They found definite indicators that each of these behaviors drive positive outcomes such as:

job satisfaction
employee loyalty/retention
job engagement

Respectful engagement and autonomous respect resulted in occupational resilience. Workers feel that employers respect the employee’s well-being, and the long-term benefit to the company is devotion and dedication.

The Meaning of Autonomous Respect

Okay, wait, Phil, what do you mean by “autonomous respect?”

I found that The Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics offers a useful definition and description:

Respect for autonomy is therefore respect for the capacity and right of persons to determine their own fortunes . … Most basically, respect for autonomy requires giving persons independence in their decisions and actions to the extent to which they do not harm others or do not violate others’ rights

The Outcomes of Respect

Respect is the state of being treated politely or being properly recognized for behavior.

A respectful leader is someone who appreciates employees for their importance and the valuable contributions they make to an organization.

Workplace respect offers tangible and intangible rewards. No matter what role we play at work, we are psychologically wired to want to do work of value to others. We want to feel useful and to know we serve a unique purpose that positively impacts the organization’s future.

I know we left Maslow and his Hierarchy of Needs in the lecture hall, but perhaps it is worthy of note in this discussion.

Credit: Wikipedia

Maslow’s premise was that humans require basic physical and psychological needs to be satisfied to feel as though they were beings of value and use in this world.

The Blank Stare

In my daily work with leaders across various industries and organizational structures, I am constantly reminded how much I need to remind them of respectful conversation and behaviors. Recently I asked a leader how often they gave specific positive feedback to their team members. I waited, and he stared blankly. I recognize the stare. It’s not unusual. We need first to authentically recognize the value of others, and secondly to communicate that effectively.

As leaders, we are communicating to our employees every day just how much the company values them by what we say, do, don’t say, and don’t do.

Best Boss- Worst Boss

It is as simple as the Best Boss /Worst Boss exercise we do in our online and in-house leadership workshops.

The exercise is simple. Take a sheet of paper and on the top left of the page, write the name of the BEST BOSS you remember in your work experience. Next, slide across the page and do the same with the WORST BOSS. Write their name down.

Now think of them as you list underneath their name what they did or didn’t do that made you think of them as the leaders of these prestigious categories.

I am willing to bet that you have listed under the BEST BOSS actions and attitudes that caused you to sense your significance – your unique worth to the organization. Similarly, the WORST BOSS will be the person who when you left the job, you hoped you never thought of them again. ( I know, “thanks a lot, Phil, for reminding me!”)

Best Bosses are people who demonstrate respect. It doesn’t matter what you do for the company, how tired they are, or how late they leave the office. You matter, and you know it by the way they make you feel. They don’t need the policy to define how they treat you. The policy is written about how they treat you.

Gandhi Had It Right

“Be the change you want to see.” Become “respect” before anyone demands it from you.

Share This With Your Friends And Coworkers!

About the author: phil eastwood.

How Teams Develop Successfully

Using BALM Method to Maximize Efficiency

Goal-Setting to Improve Work Performance

Keep a Time Log to Maximize Productivity

Making the Most of Time

Jonathan Glazer’s Oscar Speech Reflected the Best of Jewish Values

The “Zone of Interest” director’s comments at the Academy Awards were not antisemitic, not anti-Zionist, and not even all that left-wing.

Jay Michaelson

Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast / Getty

The “ antisemitism ” goalposts just keep moving. And, while it may seem hard to believe, the right’s latest “antisemite” is an Oscar-winning Jewish filmmaker who made a movie about the Holocaust —and who said something that around two-thirds of American Jews believe.

Here are the offending remarks, made by filmmaker Jonathan Glazer, after his film, The Zone of Interest , won the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film for his film:

“Our film shows where dehumanization leads, at its worst. It shaped all of our past and present. Right now we stand here as men who refute their [sic] Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation, which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza , all the victims of this dehumanization. How do we resist?”

First, a quick gloss: It seems probable that Glazer meant to say something like “we stand here as men who refute having their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked,” but got flustered in the moment. Glazer was visibly shaking during the remarks.

Some have claimed , I think preposterously, that Glazer literally meant “we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness.” But that makes no sense conceptually, has the wrong pronoun, and makes the rest of the sentence incoherent . (The misunderstanding may also be due to an early, truncated excerpt of the speech circulating online .) Glazer has not yet issued a clarifying statement.

Others in the Jewish community have condemned Glazer’s comments on a substantive basis. Michael Freund (a former adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) posted on X that Glazer is “a self-hating Jew of the worst sort who exploits the Holocaust to attack Israel in public at the Oscars ceremony.” David Schaecter, the 94-year-old president of The Holocaust Survivor’s Foundation wrote to Glazer, “You should be ashamed of yourself for using Auschwitz to criticize Israel.” And the American Jewish Committee (AJC) called Glazer’s statement “an obscene distortion of Israel’s reality and a trivialization of the Holocaust.”

As of Tuesday morning, the speech was not on the Oscars’ YouTube page .

Jonathan Glazer accepts the award for Best International Feature Film for The Zone of Interest , flanked by James Wilson and Leonard Blavatni during the 96th Annual Academy Awards on Mar. 10, 2024.

Patrick T. Fallon / Getty

In fact, what Glazer said was not antisemitic, not anti-Zionist, and not even that left-wing.

It omitted the dogwhistles and shibboleths of the Left (colonialism, genocide , “from the river to the sea,” etc), and went out of its way to acknowledge both the Israeli victims of Oct. 7 and the Palestinian victims of the war. It was harsh, but even-handed and balanced. And it is accurate: defenders of Israel’s actions frequently invoke the Holocaust, antisemitism, and the often-tragic sweep of Jewish history to make their case.

Moreover, Glazer’s statement aligns with what nearly two-thirds of American Jews believe , according to a 2021 Pew survey: that a two-state solution is the right resolution to the conflict (63 percent), but that this Israeli government is not making a sincere effort toward peace (67 percent).

Are two-thirds of American Jews self-hating antisemites? Obviously not. What we are, are mainstream progressive and liberal Zionists . (I have articulated this view in my work since 2002 , so I’ll use first-person pronouns here.)

We believe that Israel has a right to exist, even though the values of democracy and Jewish-specificity are intrinsically in tension with one another. And with that right to exist comes the right to defend itself and protect its security.

Jonathan Glazer and James Wilson at the 96th Annual Academy Awards on Mar. 10, 2024.

Richard Harbaugh / Getty

But we also believe that Israel has, many times and including in the present war, gone beyond what a state should do, ethically and strategically. It has fallen far short of democratic ideals in its discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel, and in the Israeli right’s 30 years-long undermining of the peace process . We oppose the military occupation of the West Bank and the apartheid-like regime there, where Israelis have civil rights but Palestinians do not; we support the creation of a viable, just Palestinian state; and, of late, we have called for an immediate bilateral ceasefire, in which Israel ends military operations in Gaza and Hamas releases the hostages it still holds.

In the context of the current conflict, a Dec. 21 press release from J Street, an American liberal-Zionist organization, well summarizes this position:

“We continue to affirm Israel’s right and obligation to defend its territory, provide security for its citizens and bring to justice those who perpetrated this barbaric attack. However, the civilian death toll and humanitarian crisis in Gaza that the Netanyahu government’s military operation have caused are unacceptable and out of line with American interests and values.”

This isn’t antisemitism. Nor is it rocket science; it’s what used to be the consensus reality in Washington, it is what at least 40 percent of Israeli Jews believe, and it is (still) official U.S. government policy.

Yes to Israel, no to the occupation, and no to the way this war has been conducted.

Admittedly, to many standing in solidarity with Palestine, this can all seem rather milquetoast.

On the other hand, to many in AIPAC and the pro-Israel community, it can seem like a betrayal of the Jewish people: these “milquetoast” positions have gotten me personally banned from Jewish events and conferences, and are regarded as treason by Israel’s far-right. I would also argue that this “milquetoast,” however unrealistic its vision may seem, offers the only path to a just and sustainable peace in Israel/Palestine. The maximalist visions of the Boycott Divest Sanction (BDS) movement on one side and the Israeli right on the other are either wishful thinking, or a brutal call for domination. Indeed, they are mirror images of one another.

In contrast, by going out of his way to acknowledge both the victims of Oct. 7 and the victims in Gaza, Glazer modeled the kind of multiple-narrative, multi-perspectival thinking that is so necessary in this conflict.

There is suffering on both sides; there are traumas on both sides; there are narratives of oppression on both sides. This doesn’t mean that everything everyone says is true, but acknowledging the presence of suffering on both sides (which, in my experience, few of those calling for a ceasefire on the left bother to do) is a step toward healing, and a step away from dehumanization.

Glazer’s immediate context is relevant, too. There have emerged, in the last century, two streams of Jewish responses to the Holocaust. One emphasizes the universal evils of genocide, dehumanization, and prejudice, and thus takes from the Holocaust the moral lesson that these evils must be combated everywhere. The other emphasizes the particular suffering of the Jewish people, and takes the moral lesson that Jews must be strong, must defend themselves, and must be ever watchful of antisemitism, which is an ever-present threat that will never go away.

This pessimistic view has lately been given voice by putative liberals like Franklin Foer and Dara Horn, but it necessarily slides to a right-wing ethno-nationalism. After all, if the world is always going to be trying to kill the Jews, we better do what we can to stop them. And if a few innocent civilians get in the way, well, that is the unfortunate price of Jewish survival.

Of course, both positions have some truth to it, which is why it is particularly offensive when anti-Israel protesters liken Israel to the Nazi regime. But Glazer is entirely correct that Jewishness and the Holocaust are frequently “hijacked” by those who defend Israel’s unjust treatment of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.

To be sure, at times this is less a nefarious tactic than an instinctual reaction. Many Jews, myself included, feel the weight of the Holocaust in our bones. Our bodies keep the score: we feel the insecurity , and that fear can, at times, cause us to diminish of the humanity of others.

But we can refuse to be controlled by these primal fears. We can open ourselves to the suffering of others, and see in it the suffering our families also experienced. Instead of invoking the Holocaust to justify oppression, we see it as a basis to rise up and resist it.

This position is the opposite of antisemitism. It honors profound Jewish values that demand humanity, fairness, and peace, that justice must be pursued (Deut. 16:20), that how we treat the stranger is a profound moral test (Exod. 22:20), and that every human being reflects the image of the Divine.

Disagree with Jonathan Glazer if you like, but in daring to criticize Israel, he affirmed the deepest of Jewish values.

Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast here .

READ THIS LIST

International edition
Australia edition
Europe edition

a woman in a green shirt seated at a table speaks into the camera

Republicans baffled by Katie Britt’s State of the Union response: ‘One of our biggest disasters’

The 42-year-old Alabama senator is a rising Republican star but her kitchen table speech did not land well even in her own party

Joe Biden delivers feisty State of the Union address with vision for his second term
‘Not fair at all’: Sex trafficking victim says Britt distorted her story

Katie Britt’s Republican response to Joe Biden’s State of the Union address drew reactions ranging from the baffled to the satirical to the appalled, even among fellow rightwingers.

“What the hell am I watching right now?” an unnamed Trump adviser told Rolling Stone.

“It’s one of our biggest disasters ever,” another unnamed Republican strategist told the Daily Beast.

Delivering the official State of the Union response can be a thankless task, as the former Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and the Florida senator Marco Rubio , deliverers of previously panned speeches, would ruefully attest.

Nonetheless, the 42-year-old Alabama senator is a rising Republican star, widely respected on Capitol Hill and her selection to respond to Biden was a golden opportunity to introduce herself to the wider American electorate.

In his address Biden used his bully pulpit effectively, attacking Republicans in a fiery speech and inviting a strong response . But Britt’s speech, delivered with overt theatricality, oscillating in tone between the wholesome and the wholly horrific, did not land well even in her own party.

Charlie Kirk, founder of the far-right Turning Point USA youth group, said : “I’m sure Katie Britt is a sweet mom and person, but this speech is not what we need. Joe Biden just declared war on the American right and Katie Britt is talking like she’s hosting a cooking show, whispering about how Democrats ‘dont get it’.”

That pointed to widespread confusion over the setting for such a figure to give such an important speech: a kitchen.

As a Gallup poll showed 57% of American voters think the US would be better off if more women were in elected office, Alyssa Farah Griffin, a Trump aide turned never-Trumper, said : “Senator Katie Britt is a very impressive person … I do not understand the decision to put her in a KITCHEN for one of the most important speeches she’s ever given.”

Speaking to CNN, Griffin added : “The staging of this was bizarre to me. Women can be both wives and mothers and also stateswomen, so to put her in a kitchen, not at a podium or in the Senate chamber where she was elected after running a hard-fought race, I think fell very flat and was completely confusing to some women watching it.”

Allie Beth Stuckey , host of the Relatable podcast, which “analyses culture, news and politics from a biblical perspective”, said : “Ok, GOP. Never again. I know y’all were going for the relatable mom speaking in her kitchen from her heart, but it didn’t work. Just a straight, strong speech will do in the future. Thanks.”

Kirk asked followers if they liked the speech. Blue-ticked conservative verdicts included “Man, it was so disappointing”, “No, very babysitter-reading-a-bedtime story-like”, “way too dramatic”, and “the up and down emotion was bizarre”.

Among satirical responses, Tom Nichols, an anti-Trump conservative columnist, spoke for many when he said : “There is no way that this Katie Britt address does not end up as part of the Saturday Night Live cold open.”

Elsewhere, the gonzo filmmaker Tom Arnold said : “Katie Britt is so bad she couldn’t be in one of my movies.”

Julia Ioffe, Washington correspondent for Puck News, said : “Imagine you’re sleeping over at a friend’s house and you get up in the middle of the night to pee and you hear a weird sound so you follow it to the kitchen, where your friend’s mom is drunk, crying, and rambling about the national debt. Those are the vibes from Katie Britt right now.”

From the other side of the political spectrum, however, the gun control advocate Shannon Watts highlighted a darker side to Britt’s performance, as expressed in a particularly lurid passage.

With wavering voice, the senator described meeting a migrant woman who she said described being “sex trafficked by the cartels starting at the age of 12” and who, Britt said, spoke of being repeatedly raped “on a mattress in a shoebox of a room”.

Watts said : “Senator Katie Britt says sexual assault is the worst thing that can happen to a woman while encouraging Americans to vote for a convicted sexual predator.”

Last month, Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, was ordered to pay $83.3m in a civil defamation case arising from a rape allegation a judge said was “substantially true”. Accused of sexual assault or misconduct by more than 20 other women, Trump also faces trial this month on 34 charges arising from hush-money payments to an adult film star who claimed an affair.

Britt endorsed Trump last December.

State of the Union address
US politics
Republicans

Most viewed

Speech on Value Of Life

Life holds a special value, different to each person. It’s a unique journey filled with experiences, lessons, and emotions.

You are here to explore the importance of life. Let’s ponder over the true worth of our existence and its significance.

1-minute Speech on Value Of Life

Friends, life is a gift. It’s like a beautiful flower that blooms for a short time. Each one of us should cherish this gift, because it’s truly priceless. It’s more valuable than all the gold in the world. Imagine, we have the power to think, dream, and create. That’s really amazing!

In life, every moment counts. Every smile, every tear, every joy, and every sorrow holds meaning. Life is a journey filled with lessons. Each day we learn something new. From learning to walk as a baby, to learning complex math problems at school, every step is important.

But remember, life is not just about learning. It’s also about loving, caring, and helping. It’s about making a difference in the lives of others. We can do this in many ways. We can help an old person cross the road. We can feed a hungry bird. We can plant a tree, or pick up trash from the park. These small acts of kindness add value to our lives.

Life isn’t always easy, though. Sometimes we face problems and hardships. But these tough times teach us to be strong and brave. They help us grow. Imagine, a tiny seed needs to push through the hard ground to become a beautiful flower. Similarly, we need to face challenges to become better people.

Lastly, let’s remember – time is precious. We should use it wisely. Let’s learn new things, help others, face challenges bravely, and most importantly, value our lives. Because life is a one-time gift. Let’s make the most of it!

Also check:

Essay on Value Of Life
10-lines on Value Of Life

2-minute Speech on Value Of Life

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Life, a simple four-letter word, carries a vast ocean of meanings. It’s a precious gift, a journey full of surprises, and a canvas where we paint our dreams. We all live, but do we all realize the true value of life?

Let’s start with time. Time and life are two sides of the same coin. Each tick of the clock takes away a bit of our life. Yet, each tick also gives us a chance to do something great, to make our mark, to help others. Time is a treasure and life is the chest that holds it. So, don’t waste time. Use it wisely because every second that passes becomes a memory.

Moving forward, think about the people in your life. Think about your family, your friends, your teachers. They are the pillars that hold our life together. Their smiles, their words, their presence in our lives adds value to our existence. They help us grow, they inspire us, they love us, even on our bad days. So, value them. Show them love, respect, and kindness. Their happiness will reflect in your life, making it more valuable.

Now, let’s talk about dreams. Dreams are the stars that guide us through the dark nights of our life. They give us hope, they give us direction. They make us work harder, think smarter, and be better. So, dare to dream. Dream big, dream wild. Make your life valuable by striving for your dreams.

But remember, life isn’t just about chasing dreams. It’s about enjoying the journey too. Life is in the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink. It’s in the sunrise and the sunset, the moon and the stars, the laughter and the tears. Life is in each moment. So, live in the moment. Enjoy the little things. They make life beautiful, they make life valuable.

Lastly, life is about learning. Every day is a new classroom, every person we meet is a new teacher. Life teaches us to love, to fight, to win, to lose, to laugh, to cry. It teaches us to be human. So, be a good student. Learn from life. Grow with life. The more you learn, the more valuable your life becomes.

In conclusion, life is a precious gift that we must treasure. It’s a unique blend of time, people, dreams, moments, and lessons. All these elements come together to create the value of life. So, let’s respect life. Let’s appreciate life. Let’s make our lives valuable. Because in the end, the value of life is not measured by the number of years we live, but by the love we give, the dreams we chase, the moments we cherish, and the lessons we learn.

Speech on Value Of Games
Speech on Value Of Focus For Morning Assembly
Speech on Value Of Education

We also have speeches on more interesting topics that you may want to explore.

Trump Mistakenly Said 'Obama' When He Meant 'Biden' During Richmond Speech?

"putin, you know, has so little respect for obama that he's starting to throw around the nuclear word," trump said during the march 2, 2024, speech., jordan liles, published march 4, 2024.

On March 2, 2024, X user Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) – a researcher and senior digital editor for the progressive network Meidas Touch – posted on X a video taken from a campaign speech delivered on the same day by former U.S. President Donald Trump in Richmond, Virginia. According to the post, the clip showed a "confused" Trump saying former U.S. President Barack Obama's name when he was referring to President Joe Biden.

Wow the crowd goes silent as a confused Trump says: And Putin has so little respect for Obama that he's starting to throw around the nuclear word pic.twitter.com/M0oMFKUBgu — Acyn (@Acyn) March 3, 2024

In the brief video, Trump mentioned Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying, "Get that war settled. It's a bad war. And Putin, you know, has so little respect for Obama that he's starting to throw around the nuclear word. You heard that? Nuclear. He's starting to talk nuclear weapons today." Similar clips were later virally shared by other users.

BREAKING: A confused Trump again forgot who the current president is, calling Biden "Obama." If Biden ever referred to Trump by the wrong name, the media would run a full day of stories about Biden's "cognitive decline." WHY DO THEY GIVE TRUMP A PASS? 🤨 pic.twitter.com/NON842Er67 — Jon Cooper (@joncoopertweets) March 3, 2024

Biden, Trump and Mental Acuity

The mental acuity of both Biden and Trump has become a much-discussed topic ahead of the 2024 election due to their ages — Biden is 81, Trump is 77. For example, on March 4, The Associated Press reported that a poll had found "a significant share of U.S. adults doubt the mental capabilities" of both men, with Biden earning a slightly larger share of concerned voters. The survey was conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Trump Claims Mentions of Obama Are Sarcasm

Regarding the clip from Trump's speech, there's a bit of context to be covered here, mainly the transcribed remarks that appear below. Also, Trump has mentioned Obama's name – mistakenly or not – when speaking about Biden before, as ABC News and USA Today have reported. Further, in November 2023, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he does this name swap "sarcastically" and on purpose.

To be clear, assessing whether a person – any person – truly meant to say something as a joke or to be sarcastic is not something that can necessarily be done by examining data. Partisan personalities can debate how supposedly "obvious" it is that a statement was uttered as a joke, but often the truth of the matter is only known for sure by the person who said it.

Context from Trump's Richmond Speech

Snopes found a video of Trump's full speech in Richmond that was posted on the Newsmax YouTube channel. Trump's relevant remarks have been transcribed below, all in chronological order.

At the 20:53 mark in the video, more than 36 minutes before Trump made the viral remark about Putin and Obama, he talked to the crowd about how he supposedly says Obama's name to represent Biden. He also said that, personally, he does not believe in the baseless conspiracy theory that Obama is secretly calling the shots in the Oval Office — an opinion that clashes with his own claim that he was purposely saying Obama's name "sarcastically" when he meant to say Biden's. Still, Trump said that he knows that some people might believe the conspiracy theory anyway:

Biden and his accomplices. I mean, that's what it is. It's really more of the accomplices. I mean, the guy can't put two sentences together. He can't find the stairs to a platform. (Trump gestures, pretending to be Biden looking for stairs) I have to be careful. You know, every time I do that, my wife called. I said, "How good was that speech tonight? I had 29,000 people. How good was that?" She said, "It was good, darling. But they said you had a terrible time finding your way off the platform." So every time I do that, or I'll say, "Our president, Barack Hussein Obama." Now, I do that because, you know, that makes a point. We understand that, right? Because a lot of people say he's running the country. I don't personally think so. But it is being run by a group of radical left thugs that circle the beautiful desk. The Resolute Desk. One of the most beautiful desks in the world has been badly stained by the occupant right now. But, you know. But when I say, "Barack Hussein Obama, the president of our country," on the news that night they go, "Donald Trump didn't know the name of our president. He said it was President Obama. It's President Biden." So I have to be very, very careful. It's – I have to be very, very careful. We have many of them. I purposely mix up like a name like "Bird Brain." You know who "Bird Brain" is, right? Nikki [Haley] ... with Nancy Pelosi. I put them in because they're interchangeable in my mind. And, except, I have to say... I have to say, I shouldn't say this about a semi-Republican but I think Pelosi's probably a little bit smarter, actually. It's too bad to say. But you know what? So you interchange them. And then they (inaudible). I cannot be sarcastic so I try not to be. I just did that thing for the first time in like two weeks because it's a disaster. Guaranteed, the fake news, the enemy of the people, will say, "He could not find his way off the stage." So, we have to be very careful. Between that and AI, we have a lot of problems coming.

Minutes later, at the 35:45 mark in the video, Trump mentioned Obama and Biden again, correctly referencing their time when Obama was president and Biden was vice president.

Then, at the 56:20 mark , Trump uttered the remark that went viral on X. While referencing the U.S. withdrawal from Kabul in Afghanistan in 2021 with the words "that horrible airlift" and promoting the false conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was "rigged," he said the following ( bolded words signify the portion of the speech that appeared in some posts on X):

And then we had a rigged election, and this fool, this fool, this stupid fool took over, and we had that horrible airlift. He said, "We'll never have anything like Vietnam." This thing blew Vietnam away with the people on the airplane from 3,000 feet up. They start falling off the plane. Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we win the presidency I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled. I know them both very well. And we will restore peace through strength. Get that war settled. It's a bad war. And Putin, you know, has so little respect for Obama that he's starting to throw around the nuclear word. You heard that? Nuclear. He's starting to talk nuclear weapons today. I was waiting for that to happen but we have a fool, a fool as a president. He said, "We will never leave until there is complete and total victory." And we might be there for a long time. Nah, we have a fool. I'll get that thing settled. I know both men very well.

For further reading, Snopes previously reported about the moment when Biden mistakenly called Trump the "sitting president" during a speech he gave in January 2024.

"About Us." MeidasTouch Network , https://www.meidastouch.com/page/about-us.

Acyn. "Crowd Stunned Silent as Trump Appears Confused During Speech." MeidasTouch Network , 2 Mar. 2024, https://www.meidastouch.com/news/crowd-stunned-silent-as-trump-appears-confused-during-speech.

Englander, Tyler. "Trump Makes Campaign Stop in Richmond, Attacks Biden Ahead of Super Tuesday." WAVY.com , 4 Mar. 2024, https://www.wavy.com/news/virginia/richmond/trump-makes-campaign-stop-in-richmond-attacks-biden-ahead-of-super-tuesday/.

Hennigan, W. J. "'A Tragic Mistake.' Botched Drone Strike in Afghanistan Raises Concerns Over Biden's Counterterrorism Strategy." TIME , 18 Sept. 2021, https://time.com/6099377/afghanistan-drone-strike-counterterrorism/.

Ibssa, Lalee, and Soo Rin Kim. "Trump Insists He Isn't Mixing up Obama and Biden as Critics Try to Spotlight His Gaffes." ABC News , 27 Nov. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-insists-mixing-obama-biden-critics-spotlight-gaffes/story?id=105181893.

"LIVE: President Donald Trump Get Out The Vote Rally in Richmond, Va. | NEWSMAX2." YouTube , Newsmax, 2 Mar. 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv-dWhy-RXw.

Looker, Rachel. "Why Does Donald Trump Keep Calling President Biden 'Obama' on the Campaign Trail?" USA TODAY , 4 Mar. 2024, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/03/04/campaign-confusion-trump-mistakes-biden-obama/72841597007/.

Trump, Donald. Truth Social , 27 Nov. 2023, https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111482667285702469.

By Jordan Liles

Jordan Liles is a Senior Reporter who has been with Snopes since 2016.

Article Tags

Are AI outputs protected speech? No, and it’s a dangerous proposition, legal expert says

Share on Facebook
Share on LinkedIn

Join leaders in Boston on March 27 for an exclusive night of networking, insights, and conversation. Request an invite here.

Generative AI is undeniably speechy, producing content that seems to be informed, often persuasive and highly expressive.

Given that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, some legal experts in the U.S. provocatively say that large language model (LLM) outputs are protected under the First Amendment — meaning that even potentially very dangerous generations would be beyond censure and government control.

But Peter Salib, assistant professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center , hopes to reverse this position — he warns that AI must be properly regulated to prevent potentially catastrophic consequences. His work in this area is set to appear in the Washington University School of Law Review later this year.

“Protected speech is a sacrosanct constitutional category,” Salib told VentureBeat, citing the hypothetical example of a new more advanced OpenAI LLM. “If indeed outputs of GPT-5 [or other models] are protected speech, it would be quite dire for our ability to regulate these systems.”

The AI Impact Tour – Boston

Pleased to share that my newest article, "AI Outputs Are Not Protected Speech," is forthcoming in @WashULRev . The article has, I think, important implications for impending federal and state laws designed to reduce catastrophic risk from AI. https://t.co/V3kih0HX9k pic.twitter.com/bzQU5mga5g — Peter N. Salib (@petersalib) February 13, 2024

Arguments in favor of protected AI speech

Almost a year ago, legal journalist Benjamin Wittes wrote that “[w]e have created the first machines with First Amendment rights.”

ChatGPT and similar systems are “undeniably expressive” and create outputs that are “undeniably speech,” he argued. They generate content, images and text, have dialogue with humans and assert opinions.

“When generated by people, the First Amendment applies to all of this material,” he contends. Yes, these outputs are “derivative of other content” and not original, but “many humans have never had an original thought either.”

And, he notes, “the First Amendment doesn’t protect originality. It protects expression.”

Other scholars are beginning to agree, Salib points out, as generative AI’s outputs are “so remarkably speech-like that they must be someone’s protected speech.”

This leads some to argue that the material they generate is the protected speech of their human programmers. On the other hand, others consider AI outputs the protected speech of their corporate owners (such as ChatGPT) that have First Amendment rights.

However, Salib asserts, “AI outputs are not communications from any speaker with First Amendment rights. AI outputs are not any human’s expression.”

Outputs becoming increasingly dangerous

AI is evolving rapidly and becoming orders of magnitude more capable, better at a wider range of things and used in more agent-like — and autonomous and open-ended — ways.

“The capability of the most capable AI systems is progressing very rapidly — there are risks and challenges that that poses,” said Salib, who also serves as law and policy advisor to the Center for AI Safety .

He pointed out that gen AI can already invent new chemical weapons more deadly than VX (one of the most toxic of nerve agents) and help malicious humans synthesize them; aid non-programmers in hacking vital infrastructure; and play “complex games of manipulation.”

The fact that ChatGPT and other systems can, for instance, right now help a human user synthesize cyanide indicates it could be induced to do something even more dangerous, he pointed out.

“There is strong empirical evidence that near-future generative AI systems will pose serious risks to human life, limb and freedom,” Salib writes in his 77-page paper .

This could include bioterrorism and the manufacture of “novel pandemic viruses” and attacks on critical infrastructure — AI could even execute fully automated drone-based political assassinations, Salib asserts.

AI is speechy — but it’s not human speech

World leaders are recognizing these dangers and are moving to enact regulations around safe and ethical AI. The idea is that these laws would require systems to refuse to do dangerous things or forbid humans from releasing their outputs, ultimately “punishing” models or the companies making them.

From the outside, this can look like laws that censor speech, Salib pointed out, as ChatGPT and other models are generating content that is undoubtedly “speechy.”

If AI speech is protected and the U.S. government tries to regulate it, those laws would have to clear extremely high hurdles backed by the most compelling national interest.

For instance, Salib said, someone can freely assert, “to usher in a dictatorship of the proletariat, the government must be overthrown by force.” But they can’t be punished unless they’re calling out for violation of the law that is both “imminent” and “likely” (the imminent lawless action test).

This would mean that regulators couldn’t regulate ChatGPT or OpenAI unless it would result in an “imminent large-scale disaster.”

“If AI outputs are best understood as protected speech, then laws regulating them directly, even to promote safety, will have to satisfy the strictest constitutional tests,” Salib writes.

AI is different than other software outputs

Clearly, outputs from some software are their creators’ expressions. A video game designer, for instance, has specific ideas in mind that they want to incorporate through software. Or, a user typing something into Twitter is looking to communicate in a way that’s in their voice.

But gen AI is quite different both conceptually and technically, said Salib.

“People who make GPT-5 aren’t trying to make software that says something; they’re making software that says anything,” said Salib. They’re seeking to “communicate all the messages, including millions and millions and millions of ideas that they never thought about.”

Users ask open questions to get models to provide answers they didn’t already know or content

“That’s why it’s not human speech,” said Salib. Therefore, AI isn’t in “the most sacred category that gets the highest amount of constitutional protection.”

Probing more into artificial general intelligence (AGI) territory, some are beginning to argue that AI outputs belong to the systems themselves.

“Maybe that’s right — these things are very autonomous,” Salib conceded.

But even while they’re doing “speechy stuff independent of humans,” that’s not sufficient enough to give them First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.

“There are many sentient beings in the world who don’t have First Amendment rights,” Salib pointed out — say, Belgians, or chipmunks.

“Inhuman AIs may someday join the community of First Amendment rights holders,” Salib writes. “But for now, they, like most of the world’s human speakers, remain outside it.”

Is it corporate speech?

Corporations aren’t humans either, yet they have speech rights. This is because they are “derivative of the rights of the humans that constitute them.” This extends only as necessary to prevent otherwise protected speech from losing that protection upon contact with corporations.

“My argument is that corporate speech rights are parasitic on the rights of the humans who make up the corporation,” said Salib.

For instance, humans with First Amendment rights sometimes have to use a corporation to speak — an author needs Random House to publish their book, for instance.

“But if an LLM doesn’t produce protected speech in the first place, it doesn’t make sense that that becomes protected speech when it is bought by, or transmitted through a corporation,” said Salib.

Regulating the outputs, not the process

The best way to mitigate risks going forward is to regulate AI outputs themselves, Salib argues.

While some would say the solution would be to prevent systems from generating bad outputs in the first place, this simply isn’t feasible. LLMs can not be prevented from creating outputs due to self-programming, “uninterpretability” and generality — meaning they are largely unpredictable to humans, even with techniques such as reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF).

“There is thus no way, currently, to write legal rules mandating safe code,” Salib writes.

Instead, successful AI safety regulations must include rules about what the models are allowed to “say.” Rules could be varied — for instance, if an AI’s outputs were often highly dangerous, laws could require a model to remain unreleased “or even be destroyed.” Or, if outputs were only mildly dangerous and occasional, a per-output liability rule could apply.

All of this, in turn, would give AI companies stronger incentives to invest in safety research and stringent protocols.

However it ultimately takes shape, “laws have to be designed to prevent people from being deceived or harmed or killed,” Salib emphasized.

VentureBeat's mission is to be a digital town square for technical decision-makers to gain knowledge about transformative enterprise technology and transact. Discover our Briefings.

Zoë Kravitz pokes fun at dad Lenny Kravitz’s skin-baring style at Walk of Fame ceremony: ‘I respect it’

View Author Archive
Get author RSS feed

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

Zoë Kravitz couldn’t let her dad have a moment without throwing some light shade, too.

The “Batman” actress, 35, delivered a cute speech at dad Lenny Kravitz’s Walk of Fame ceremony on Tuesday, where the “American Woman” singer was honored with a star — and roasted for his sense of fashion.

“Lenny Kravitz, I’ve had the pleasure of knowing you for a long time, and I must say, being your daughter has been one of the great adventures of my life,” Zoë said.

“Since you were so young when I was born, in many ways, we’ve grown up together,” she continued. “We’ve been through a lot. We’ve seen a lot. I’ve seen a lot.”

Lenny Kravitz in silver chain top and skinny leather pants at Grammy Awards 2022.

In her speech, the star shared that she’s seen her dad “change in the most beautiful ways” while also staying “the same in the most important ways.

I’ve seen your incredible dedication to your art, but mostly, I’ve seen through your shirts,” she jested. “According to my dad, if it doesn’t expose your nipples, it’s not a shirt.”

For more Page Six Style …

See the best celebrity looks of the week in our new series, “Instantly Iconic Style”
Browse the best fashion and beauty products, according to celebs
Shop our exclusive merch

While the actress shared she used to find her father’s lack of clothing embarrassing when she was a child, she has grown to applaud his dedication to it.

“I gotta say, at this point, I respect it. You really do pull it off,” she said. “Your relationship with a netted shirt is probably your longest one, and it works. You two make each other better, and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It’s a beautiful thing.”

After lovingly roasting the “Hunger Games” star, 59, Zoë shared what really makes her dad so “rad.”

“Your radness doesn’t come from your shades or leather pants or netted shirts, it comes from your true love of life. Everything you do is an expression of that love,” she said.

“I know Grandpa Sy and Grandma Roxie were already so proud of what they got to watch you do and accomplish and I know that they are still watching in awe of the man and artist you have become. I know I am. Congratulations, you’re a star.”

Lenny Kravitz's Hollywood star unveiling with his daughter Zoë Kravitz and actor Denzel Washington.

Lenny Kravitz pulled his daughter into a loving hug after her speech, telling her the speech “was beautiful”.

Zoë’s fiancee, Channing Tatum, was also in attendance, with the Lolawolf singer flaunting her massive engagement ring.

Shop 'til you drop with Post Wanted

Save time and money with the latest deals, discounts, trends, reviews and more.

Thanks for signing up!

Please provide a valid email address.

By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy .

Never miss a story with New York Post newsletters.

While Lenny kept things covered up, wearing a silk shirt underneath a blazer and pinstriped pants, Zoë herself showed a little skin in a blue strapless cutout swimsuit under a black skirt, with the father/daughter duo matching in Saint Laurent designs.

While he loved his daughter’s speech, Lenny previously revealed at the 2024 Critics Choice Awards that he was not going to rehearse his father-of-the-bride speech for her wedding day.

“It just comes at the moment. I don’t rehearse those things,” he told Entertainment Tonight !

The rock star added that he would consider performing on his daughter’s special day. Stay tuned to see what the father of the bride wears to walk her down the aisle.

Share this article:

Jonathan Glazer’s Oscar Speech Reflected the Best of Jewish Values

Poll: Netanyahu Tops Rivals as Biden Pressure Campaign Fails

Ukraine hits at least 3 Russian oil refineries in one of the largest drone strikes in recent months

Kevin O’Leary offers to purchase TikTok assets

‘Love Is Blind’ Season 6: Are Johnny McIntyre and Amy Cortés Still Together?

Nothing personal for Tupou against Reds while Crusaders try to stop rot

Kolena debuts platform for testing AI models and fine-tuned variants

9 shows and movies from Netflix, Peacock, Hulu, and Apple TV+ that I wish more people knew about

Democrats Meddle in Ohio G.O.P. Senate Primary, Pushing Trump’s Choice

Dancing and Jumping Over Fire, Iranians Use Holiday to Defy Rules

Mississippi Medicaid expansion at crossroads over work requirement

Don Lemon: Elon Musk ‘Seemed Really Averse to Facts’

What We Know About the Death of a Nonbinary Student in Oklahoma

Environment

Here are the offending remarks, made by filmmaker Jonathan Glazer, after his film, The Zone of Interest , won the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film for his film:

As of Tuesday morning, the speech was not on the Oscars’ YouTube page .

In fact, what Glazer said was not antisemitic, not anti-Zionist, and not even that left-wing.

In the context of the current conflict, a Dec. 21 press release from J Street, an American liberal-Zionist organization, well summarizes this position:

Yes to Israel, no to the occupation, and no to the way this war has been conducted.

Admittedly, to many standing in solidarity with Palestine, this can all seem rather milquetoast.

“In fact, what Glazer said was not antisemitic, not anti-Zionist, and not even that left-wing.”

Disagree with Jonathan Glazer if you like, but in daring to criticize Israel, he affirmed the deepest of Jewish values.

The post Jonathan Glazer’s Oscar Speech Reflected the Best of Jewish Values appeared first on The Daily Beast .

U.S. House passes a bill that could lead to a TikTok ban if Chinese owner refuses to sell

‘The Effect’ Review: Dissecting the Science of Desire

Kamala Harris to visit a clinic that provides abortion services

Joe Manganiello Wishes ‘True Blood’ Hadn’t Killed Off His Werewolf Character: “There Was A Lot Left Unexplored”

Turkey’s Erdogan Gears Up for Another Incursion into Syria and Iraq

Site Navigation

Privacy & Policy

Privacy Overview

IMAGES

Speech On Respect
44 Respect Examples (2024)
Speech on Respect
A Speech on Respect in english
respect
Respect-Values of Life-Students-Character-Building

VIDEO

respect#motivation #speech #motivationalvideo #inspiration #dailymotivation #motivational #success
AN EXAMPLE OF RESPECT FOR PEOPLE💯💯🤯
feeling Dil se
Respect WhatsApp status motivation status #shorts #sigma #attitude
3 reasons why someone dislikes you//#motivation #quotes #inspiration #motivationalspeech #success
Always Respect Your Parents #lifelessons #motivation #mindset #wisdom #motivationalspeech

COMMENTS

Speech on Respect
2-minute Speech on Respect. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on a topic that I believe is very close to all of us, 'Respect'. Respect is the cornerstone of any relationship, whether it be between family, friends, or colleagues. It is a universal value that we must all uphold, regardless of our ...
Respect Speech for Students and Children in English
February 8, 2024 by Prasanna. Speech On Respect: When we want to show appreciation or commendation towards somebody for their specific contribution towards our life or society, that feeling we call as respect. In a society, we must show respect to everybody. Listening to somebody's thoughts and views, valuing their opinions is what respect is ...
Speech on Respect in English for Students
Respect Speech 3 Minutes. This Speech is useful for students in grades 1-3 as they can understand and speak about the topic in 10 Simple Lines. Respect is an emotion one feels for something or someone, that can also be a form of admiration. Respect can be expressed and conveyed to people in different ways.
Respect (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
And we come to value respect for such things; when we're older, we may shake our heads (or fists) at people who seem not to have learned to respect them. We develop great respect for people we consider exemplary and lose respect for those we discover to be clay-footed; we may also come to believe that, at some level, all people are worthy of ...
Speech on Respect for Students and Children
Unfortunately, in modern times, people are forgetting and fading the value of respect. Notably, there are 2 important aspects of respect that are self-respect and the respect that we give to other people. Read speech on respect here. Self-Respect. The word self-respect also has a wide and deep meaning.
Speech on Respect made Easy: Practical Tips for a Memorable and
Speech on Respect made Easy: Practical Tips for a Memorable and Impactful Presentation. Respect is a fundamental value that plays a crucial role in our social interactions. It is the cornerstone of effective communication and building positive relationships. Whether you are preparing for a school presentation, a work meeting, or a public ...
Reverence: The Act of Showing Respect
The secular world defines the word respect in the following manner: to "esteem," "to acknowledge the . . . integrity or worthiness of; . . . to show consideration for" ( Reader's Digest Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1987, s.v. "respect," 1430). Reverence is the "act of showing respect.". It is "a feeling of profound ...
How To Show Respect For Others (+ Why It's Important In Life)
No human being is exempt. Showing respect for human life and human beings is fundamental to a civil society and civil world. 2. Respect affirms those worthy of respect. When we respect others, it affirms their right to respect and their worthiness of respect.
Understanding the Importance of Respect: A Simple Guide to Delivering
Respect is a fundamental value that plays a vital role in social emotional learning. By understanding and practicing respect, we can create a more inclusive and harmonious society. Delivering an easy speech on respect allows us to spread awareness and inspire others to embrace this value in their daily lives.
Speech on Respect
Respect is like a glue that holds all relationships together. It helps to build trust, establish communication and maintain harmony. Respecting each other's individuality and differences is the first step towards building healthy relationships. Respecting others helps to create a positive environment in our homes, schools, workplaces and society.
Speech on Respect
10 Lines Speech on Respect. All people need to be respected. Respecting someone implies considering their preferences, feelings, views, and ideas. Every person in our country deserves respect, regardless of their differences. We should cherish our siblings and friends and show respect to our parents, teachers, and other senior citizens.
Speech About Values [1-3 Minutes]
2. Honesty. " Honesty is the best policy ". You must have listened to this line one day or another. It is one of the most basic core values. Honesty is the equilibrium of what we say and what we do. It also encourages one to always tell the truth and avoid cheating. 3.
Respect: What is it, types, examples, learn and teach respect
Types of Respect. There are many types, the most important of which are: self-respect, for others, social norms, nature, values, laws, culture, and the family. Some examples of consideration in everyday life are: greeting or speaking to others in a kind and respectful way, giving up your seat in public places, treating others as you would like ...
Speech on Good Values
1-minute Speech on Good Values. Today, let's talk about good values. Good values are like a magic key. They open doors to a life full of joy, respect, and success. They are the guiding stars that help us make the right choices, even when things get tough. Firstly, honesty is a good value. It's like a shiny coin.
Freedom of Speech
In such cases, the free-speech value is outweighed. Many scholars who defend the permissibility of legal restrictions on hate speech hold such a view (e.g., Parekh 2012; Waldron 2012). (More radically, one could hold that such speech's value is corrupted by its evil, such that it qualifies as genuinely low-value; Howard 2019a.)
Speech on Self Respect
1-minute Speech on Self Respect. Ladies and Gentlemen, Good evening! Today, I stand before you to discuss a topic of great importance, a virtue that is the cornerstone of our individuality, our self-esteem, and our personal development - Self Respect. Self-respect is the appreciation we have for ourselves that comes from our inherent belief ...
Speech on Moral Values in English
Long Speech on Moral Values. Moral values are the foundation of ethical behaviour and help individuals prioritise what is important in their lives. Examples of moral values include honesty, integrity, respect, kindness, compassion, responsibility, and fairness. Moral values are the fundamental principles that shape our character and guide our ...
Speech on Respect in simple and easy words
Speech on Respect 1. Respected Principal, Teachers and My Dear Students! First of all, thank you for being a part of this celebration. We have gathered here to celebrate the annual day of our school and like every year, we will try our best to make this celebration the most memorable for all of you.
Respect in the Workplace: Why It's Important and How To Achieve It
Example 2: Appreciating diverse backgrounds and experiences. Respect in the workplace goes beyond treating others with kindness and courtesy. It also involves embracing and appreciating the diverse backgrounds and experiences each team member brings. This will foster a culture of inclusivity and encourage creativity.
The Debate Over "Free Speech": What Role Do Values Play?
The way that these foundations manifest in people's opinions can also sometimes be confusing and vary or seem to conflict depending on the issue: someone who values the liberty of free speech may oppose abortion rights, an issue affecting women's liberty, for reasons of sanctity; someone might support a free childcare policy for reasons of ...
The Value of Respect in the Workplace
They found definite indicators that each of these behaviors drive positive outcomes such as: job satisfaction. employee loyalty/retention. job engagement. Respectful engagement and autonomous respect resulted in occupational resilience. Workers feel that employers respect the employee's well-being, and the long-term benefit to the company is ...
Samuel Alito says US legacy is 'mutual respect' between religions
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito believes the everlasting legacy of the United States is the "mutual respect" of diverse religious viewpoints, according to his keynote speech for the launch of ...
State of the Union 2024: Trump 'corrects' Biden speech with Truth
Former President Donald Trump kept a running play-by-play of the State of the Union address Thursday night, offering his own takes on President Joe Biden's address to Congress. Trump, who often ...
Jonathan Glazer's Oscar Speech Reflected the Best of Jewish Values
It honors profound Jewish values that demand humanity, fairness, and peace, that justice must be pursued (Deut. 16:20), that how we treat the stranger is a profound moral test (Exod. 22:20), and ...
Republicans baffled by Katie Britt's State of the Union response: 'One
The 42-year-old Alabama senator is a rising Republican star but her kitchen table speech did not land well even in her own party Katie Britt's Republican response to Joe Biden's State of the ...
Speech on Value Of Life
1-minute Speech on Value Of Life. Friends, life is a gift. It's like a beautiful flower that blooms for a short time. ... dreams, moments, and lessons. All these elements come together to create the value of life. So, let's respect life. Let's appreciate life. Let's make our lives valuable. Because in the end, the value of life is not ...
Trump Mistakenly Said 'Obama' When He Meant 'Biden' During Richmond Speech?
According to the post, the clip showed a "confused" Trump saying former U.S. President Barack Obama's name when he was referring to President Joe Biden. Wow the crowd goes silent as a confused ...
Are AI outputs protected speech? No, and its a dangerous proposition
Arguments in favor of protected AI speech. Almost a year ago, legal journalist Benjamin Wittes wrote that "[w]e have created the first machines with First Amendment rights.". ChatGPT and ...
Zoë Kravitz pokes fun at dad Lenny Kravitz's skin-baring style at Walk
Zoë Kravitz couldn't let her dad have a moment without throwing some light shade, too. The "Batman" actress, 35, delivered a cute speech at dad Lenny Kravitz's Walk of Fame ceremony on ...
Jonathan Glazer's Oscar Speech Reflected the Best of Jewish Values
Jonathan Glazer's Oscar Speech Reflected the Best of Jewish Values. March 12, 2024. in News, Opinion, Politics. VIEWS. The " antisemitism " goalposts just keep moving. And, while it may seem hard to believe, the right's latest "antisemite" is an Oscar-winning Jewish filmmaker who made a movie about the Holocaust —and who said ...

Speech on Respect in English for Students

Long and Short Speech on Respect for Students

Short Speech on Respect for Students

Respect Speech 3 Minutes

Speech on Respect for Students and Children

Self-Respect

Respect of Others

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Speech for Students

16 responses to “Speech on Water for Students and Children”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Download the App

Reverence: The Act of Showing Respect

Arise and Shine Forth

Respect Is Expressed in Many Different Ways

By Definition

By Commandment

Five Ways to Increase Our Reverence

1. Develop an Attitude of Reverence and Respect in Your Personal Life

2. Avoid the Too Frequent Repetition of Sacred Names

3. Learn Prayer Language

4. Avoid Vain Repetitions

Blessings Await Us

Related Speeches

How To Show Respect For Others (+ Why It’s Important In Life)

How Do We Show Respect For Others?

5. Be Polite

6. Be Thankful

Why Respect Is Important In Life

1. Showing respect is the right response in a civil society.

2. Respect affirms those worthy of respect.

3. It encourages behavior that’s respectful.

4. It provides a solid foundation for relationships.

5. Without respect we lose heart.

About The Author

Understanding the Importance of Respect: A Simple Guide to Delivering an Easy Speech

Understanding Respect

The Power of Words

Non-Verbal Communication

Cultural Sensitivity

Delivering an Easy Speech on Respect

Related Blog Posts:

Preparing for Success: Enhancing Social Communication in Grade 12

FREE MATERIALS

Get Started Instantly for Free

Notice About Our SEL Curriculum

Speech on Respect

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Speech About Values [1-3 Minutes]

1 Minute Speech about Values

2-Minute Speech About Values

3 Minute Speech On The Importance Of values

1. Kindness

3. Doing the Right Thing

Other Speeches

Related Posts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Respect: Examples and How to Learn or Teach It

What is respect? Concept and definition

Why Is Respect Important?

Types of Respect

How to Teach Respect?

1. Respect your children

2. Stay calm and don’t shout

3. Don’t use negative labels or insults

4. Understand why he/she disrespected you

5. Don’t let them disrespect you

6. Set limits

7. Apologize when you’re wrong

8. Congratulate your children when they are respectful

Respect in the workplace

Learn to respect yourself

1. Treat others the way you want to be treated

2. Respect yourself

3. Use body language

4. Speak positively

5. Surround yourself with the right people

6. Defend yourself against disrespect

7. Boost your self-esteem

8. Develop assertiveness