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

Respect & Values

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

Renewing Reverence

Living a Reverent Life

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
MHT CET 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
GATE College Predictor
KCET College Predictor
JEE Advanced College Predictor
View All College Predictors
JEE Main Question Paper
JEE Main Cutoff
JEE Main Answer Key
JEE Main Result
Download E-Books and Sample Papers
Compare Colleges
B.Tech College Applications
JEE Advanced Registration
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
NMAT College Predictor
MAT College Predictor 2024
CMAT College Predictor 2024
CAT Percentile Predictor 2023
CAT 2023 College Predictor
CMAT 2024 Registration
TS ICET 2024 Registration
CMAT Exam Date 2024
MAH MBA CET Cutoff 2024
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
NID DAT 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 2024
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 Exam City Intimation Slip 2024
IGNOU Date Sheet
CUET Mock Test 2024
CUET Admit card 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 Courses List 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

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.

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.

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.

GIS officer work on various GIS software to conduct a study and gather spatial and non-spatial information. GIS experts update the GIS data and maintain it. The databases include aerial or satellite imagery, latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates, and manually digitized images of maps. In a career as GIS expert, one is responsible for creating online and mobile maps.

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.

Database Architect

If you are intrigued by the programming world and are interested in developing communications networks then a career as database architect may be a good option for you. Data architect roles and responsibilities include building design models for data communication networks. Wide Area Networks (WANs), local area networks (LANs), and intranets are included in the database networks. It is expected that database architects will have in-depth knowledge of a company's business to develop a network to fulfil the requirements of the organisation. Stay tuned as we look at the larger picture and give you more information on what is db architecture, why you should pursue database architecture, what to expect from such a degree and what your job opportunities will be after graduation. Here, we will be discussing how to become a data architect. Students can visit NIT Trichy , IIT Kharagpur , JMI New Delhi .

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Stock Analyst

Individuals who opt for a career as a stock analyst examine the company's investments makes decisions and keep track of financial securities. The nature of such investments will differ from one business to the next. Individuals in the stock analyst career use data mining to forecast a company's profits and revenues, advise clients on whether to buy or sell, participate in seminars, and discussing financial matters with executives and evaluate annual reports.

A Researcher is a professional who is responsible for collecting data and information by reviewing the literature and conducting experiments and surveys. He or she uses various methodological processes to provide accurate data and information that is utilised by academicians and other industry professionals. Here, we will discuss what is a researcher, the researcher's salary, types of researchers.

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.

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.

Safety Manager

A Safety Manager is a professional responsible for employee’s safety at work. He or she plans, implements and oversees the company’s employee safety. A Safety Manager ensures compliance and adherence to Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) guidelines.

Conservation Architect

A Conservation Architect is a professional responsible for conserving and restoring buildings or monuments having a historic value. He or she applies techniques to document and stabilise the object’s state without any further damage. A Conservation Architect restores the monuments and heritage buildings to bring them back to their original state.

Structural Engineer

A Structural Engineer designs buildings, bridges, and other related structures. He or she analyzes the structures and makes sure the structures are strong enough to be used by the people. A career as a Structural Engineer requires working in the construction process. It comes under the civil engineering discipline. A Structure Engineer creates structural models with the help of computer-aided design software.

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.

Field Surveyor

Are you searching for a Field Surveyor Job Description? A Field Surveyor is a professional responsible for conducting field surveys for various places or geographical conditions. He or she collects the required data and information as per the instructions given by senior officials.

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.

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.

Veterinary Doctor

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.

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.

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.

Are you searching for an ‘Anatomist job description’? An Anatomist is a research professional who applies the laws of biological science to determine the ability of bodies of various living organisms including animals and humans to regenerate the damaged or destroyed organs. If you want to know what does an anatomist do, then read the entire article, where we will answer all your questions.

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.

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.

Photographer

Photography is considered both a science and an art, an artistic means of expression in which the camera replaces the pen. In a career as a photographer, an individual is hired to capture the moments of public and private events, such as press conferences or weddings, or may also work inside a studio, where people go to get their picture clicked. Photography is divided into many streams each generating numerous career opportunities in photography. With the boom in advertising, media, and the fashion industry, photography has emerged as a lucrative and thrilling career option for many Indian youths.

An individual who is pursuing a career as a producer is responsible for managing the business aspects of production. They are involved in each aspect of production from its inception to deception. Famous movie producers review the script, recommend changes and visualise the story.

They are responsible for overseeing the finance involved in the project and distributing the film for broadcasting on various platforms. A career as a producer is quite fulfilling as well as exhaustive in terms of playing different roles in order for a production to be successful. Famous movie producers are responsible for hiring creative and technical personnel on contract basis.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Individuals who opt for a career as a reporter may often be at work on national holidays and festivities. He or she pitches various story ideas and covers news stories in risky situations. Students can pursue a BMC (Bachelor of Mass Communication) , B.M.M. (Bachelor of Mass Media) , or MAJMC (MA in Journalism and Mass Communication) to become a reporter. While we sit at home reporters travel to locations to collect information that carries a news value.

Corporate Executive

Are you searching for a Corporate Executive job description? A Corporate Executive role comes with administrative duties. He or she provides support to the leadership of the organisation. A Corporate Executive fulfils the business purpose and ensures its financial stability. In this article, we are going to discuss how to become corporate executive.

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.

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

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.

Process Development Engineer

The Process Development Engineers design, implement, manufacture, mine, and other production systems using technical knowledge and expertise in the industry. They use computer modeling software to test technologies and machinery. An individual who is opting career as Process Development Engineer is responsible for developing cost-effective and efficient processes. They also monitor the production process and ensure it functions smoothly and efficiently.

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.

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.

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.

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

ITSM Manager

Automation test engineer.

An Automation Test Engineer job involves executing automated test scripts. He or she identifies the project’s problems and troubleshoots them. The role involves documenting the defect using management tools. He or she works with the application team in order to resolve any issues arising during the testing process.

Applications for Admissions are open.

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

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

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

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

ALLEN NEET Coaching

Ace your NEET preparation with ALLEN Online Programs

SAT® | CollegeBoard

TOEFL ® Registrations 2024

Thinking of Studying Abroad? Think the TOEFL® test. Register now & Save 10% on English Proficiency Tests with Gift Cards

Resonance Coaching

Enroll in Resonance Coaching for success in JEE/NEET exams

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

THE ETHICS INSTITUTE
Putting ethics at the centre of everyday life.
LIVING OUR ETHICS
ANNUAL REPORTS
Articles, podcasts, videos, research & courses tackling the issues that matter.
WHAT IS ETHICS?
Events and interactive experiences exploring ethics of being human.
UPCOMING EVENTS
PAST EVENTS
PAST SPEAKERS
FESTIVAL OF DANGEROUS IDEAS
Counselling and bespoke consulting programs to help you make better decisions and navigate complexity.
CONSULTING & LEADERSHIP
Our work is only made possible because of you. Join us!
BECOME A MEMBER
SUPPORT OUR WORK
THE ETHICS ALLIANCE
BANKING + FINANCIAL SERVICES OATH
RESIDENCY PROGRAM
YOUNG WRITERS’ COMPETITION
YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL
ENGAGE AN EXPERT
MEDIA CENTRE
HIRE OUR SPACE

Ethics Explainer: Respect

Explainer relationships, by the ethics centre 27 sep 2017, the concept of respect arises in two major forms. we’ll call them respect (lite) and respect (full)., respect (lite).

Respect (lite) is in play when being polite, considerate and mindful of another person. It can also be demanded from another as a mark of deference to their rank, seniority, experience or standing in the world. We see it in statements like: “respect your elders”, “show a little respect”, or “with all due respect”.

It tends to be allied to the claim that respect is best earned rather than demanded. However, the idea that respect (lite) needs to be earned is one of the most important ways of distinguishing the ‘lite’ concept from the ‘full’ form.

Respect (full)

Respect for persons may perhaps be the most fundamental principle in all of ethics. Respect (full) calls on each and every one of us to respect the intrinsic dignity of all other people. If something is intrinsic to us, it is essential to our being and cannot be earned. It is a property of being a person.

The source of intrinsic dignity has varied over time and across cultures. For example, within Judaism, Christianity and Islam (at least), the intrinsic dignity of persons comes from being made in the image of God. In each of these traditions, the image isn’t literal. Rather, the reference is to being made in the ‘moral image’ of God – and most importantly, being endowed with free will.

There are also secular sources of personhood. Perhaps most famous is Immanuel Kant’s linking of personhood and intrinsic dignity to our rationality. This quality of ours means we all belong to what Kant calls the ‘Kingdom of Ends’.

‘The Kingdom of Ends’ is a thought experiment Kant created in which all human beings are treated as ends (where they and their wellbeing are the goal), and not as a “means to an end” (where the benefit of others is the goal). You’ve probably heard someone say, “My job is a means to an end”, meaning they don’t care much for their work but do care about the rent, family or travel their work pays for.

Having made a distinction between means and ends, Kant goes on to say a person should never be used as a means. Unsurprisingly he had a prohibition against slavery, the ancient institution where people become the property of someone else who uses them as a tool for their own benefit.

Respect (full) is what we count on as the source of principled opposition to all forms of discrimination against persons – whether it be because of age, gender, sexuality, race, religion… whatever.

Joining the two ideas together

These two versions of respect are clearly related. It is just that we tend to lose sight of the connection. Polite, respectful debate about contentious issues is not just about avoiding harmful consequences. It can (and should) go deeper – right back to recognition of the intrinsic dignity of others.

That is ultimately the reason why we should listen to their opinion. It is why we should attack the arguments and not the person. It is why we should refrain from insulting, bullying , silencing or oppressing others even if we fundamentally disagree with them.

Of course, civilised and principled disagreement can help avoid matters getting out of hand when tempers fray. But safer, better forms of deliberation are collateral benefit of acting on the principle of respect for persons – and acknowledging their intrinsic dignity – even when we are opposing them.

Ethics in your inbox.

Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.

Everyday Ethics Monthly
Professional Ethics Quarterly

By signing up you agree to our privacy policy

You might be interested in…

Opinion + Analysis Relationships, Society + Culture

The #MeToo debate – recommended reads

Opinion + Analysis Relationships

How to respectfully disagree

When identity is used as a weapon.

Opinion + Analysis Health + Wellbeing, Politics + Human Rights, Relationships

Ethics in a time of coronavirus

BY The Ethics Centre

The ethics centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life..

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

Pin It on Pinterest

Share this post with your friends!

Speech on Self Respect

Self-respect is a powerful force within you. It’s about acknowledging your worth and not letting others diminish it.

When you respect yourself, you set the stage for others to respect you too. It’s a key ingredient for a happy, successful life.

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 in our own worth. It is the foundation upon which we build our character and define who we are. It is not about arrogance or self-admiration, but about acknowledging our self-worth and dignity.

Having self-respect means setting boundaries for ourselves and not letting anyone cross them. It means not allowing others to treat us in ways we do not deserve. It is about standing up for ourselves when we are wronged, and not letting anyone belittle us or our efforts.

However, self-respect is not just about how we allow others to treat us, but also about how we treat ourselves. It means taking care of our physical, emotional, and mental well-being. It means being aware of our strengths and weaknesses, and working on them for our own growth, not for the validation of others.

In conclusion, self-respect is a crucial element in leading a fulfilling life. It is the key to building healthy relationships, achieving personal growth, and maintaining mental well-being. Let us, therefore, strive to cultivate and nurture this essential virtue in ourselves and in those around us. Remember, we cannot truly respect others if we do not respect ourselves first.

Also check:

Essay on Self Respect

2-minute Speech on Self Respect

Good day to you all. Today, I am here to talk about a topic that forms the very core of our being, our self-respect. Self-respect is the cornerstone of all virtues, the bedrock upon which we build our identity, our sense of worth, and our integrity. It is not about arrogance or pride, but rather a profound understanding and acceptance of our self-worth.

Self-respect is the recognition of our intrinsic value as human beings. It is about acknowledging that we are unique individuals with our own set of strengths and weaknesses. We are not perfect, yet we are valuable. We are not flawless, yet we are worthy. It is about refusing to let our worth be defined by external circumstances or the opinions of others. Instead, it is about defining our worth by our own standards, our own values, and our own actions.

When we respect ourselves, we set boundaries. We do not allow others to treat us poorly or take us for granted. We do not allow ourselves to be manipulated or used. We stand up for ourselves and our rights. We do not compromise our values or principles for the sake of pleasing others. We do not seek validation from others, but rather find validation within ourselves.

However, self-respect is not just about how we allow others to treat us. It is also about how we treat ourselves. It is about treating ourselves with kindness, compassion, and understanding. It is about taking care of our physical, emotional, and mental well-being. It is about honoring our needs and desires, and pursuing our passions and dreams. It is about being true to ourselves, and living our lives authentically.

But, let’s not forget, self-respect is not a destination, it’s a journey. It’s a journey of self-discovery, self-acceptance, and self-love. It’s a journey that requires courage, patience, and persistence. It’s a journey that requires us to confront our fears, insecurities, and self-doubts. But, it’s a journey worth embarking on, for it leads us to a life of dignity, integrity, and fulfillment.

In conclusion, self-respect is the foundation upon which we build our lives. It is the guiding principle that directs our actions, shapes our relationships, and influences our decisions. It is the compass that guides us through the ups and downs of life, and helps us navigate the challenges and adversities we face. It is the beacon that lights our path, and leads us towards a life of honor, dignity, and self-worth.

Remember, when we respect ourselves, we respect our existence. We respect our dreams, our ambitions, and our potential. We respect our journey, our struggles, and our victories. And most importantly, we respect our power to shape our destiny, and create our own reality. So, let’s embark on this journey of self-respect, and let’s create a life that reflects our worth, our value, and our dignity. Thank you.

Speech on Climate Change
Speech on Tourism
Speech on Ozone Day

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

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

Top 10 Essentials Of a Good Value Speech

Table of Contents

A compelling value speech serves as a guidepost, illuminating principles that shape our lives. It’s a beacon of understanding, urging us to reflect on what truly matters. To craft such a speech, certain essentials are crucial and they are as:

Clarity of Message: Clearly communicate the core value you’re advocating for or discussing.
Personal Relevance: Connect the value to personal experiences or stories to make it relatable.
Research and Examples: Support your points with real-life examples or research findings.
Engagement with Audience: Encourage audience participation, perhaps through questions or reflective pauses.
Authenticity: Try to describe your feelings from the heart and share genuine thoughts to establish credibility.
Respectful Tone: Have a respectful and personal tone, acknowledging diverse perspectives.
Call to Action: Encourage the audience to take tangible steps related to the discussed value.
Conciseness: Keep the speech focused and concise, avoiding unnecessary details.
Emotional Appeal: Appeal to emotions without being manipulative, fostering empathy and understanding.
Memorable Conclusion: Summarize key points and leave the audience with a memorable takeaway.

Crafting a value-driven speech involves weaving together these essentials to inspire, educate, and prompt action, leaving a lasting impact on your audience.

Step by Step Guide on The Best Way to Finance Car

The Best Way on How to Get Fund For Business to Grow it Efficiently

The Debate Over “Free Speech”: What Role Do Values Play?

by Danny Mucinskas

On July 7, 2020, Harper’s Magazine published an online letter titled “A Letter on Open Justice and Debate,” which warned readers of a “censoriousness” and “intolerance of opposing views” that appears to be spreading in the culture of the United States, leading to “public shaming and ostracism” and “calls for swift and severe retribution.” The letter was signed by dozens of prominent academics, writers, and others from across the political spectrum, including Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, Francis Fukuyama, Linda Greenwood, Wynton Marsalis, Salman Rushdie, and Gloria Steinem.

Overall, the signatories expressed concern that free speech is being restricted, warning that lack of open debate “invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.” They cite no specific cases but are ostensibly referring to several incidents that occurred in the wake of racial justice protests around the country, such as the firing of data analyst David Shor for posting research supporting non-violent protests and the resignation of James Bennet of The New York Times following the publication of a controversial op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas calling for military intervention to quell unrest.

The letter immediately sparked controversy and criticism from detractors. Some felt that the letter was an attempt by those in positions of power to simply preserve ability to speak with impunity . Members of the transgender community spoke out , believing the letter to be problematic, especially as it had been endorsed by J.K. Rowling, who has recently come under fire for intolerance towards trans women. Others questioned why the letter was even published , at a time when the world is dealing with a global pandemic and the United States is facing a reckoning over racial violence and inequity. At least one signatory retracted her name , while another apologized for signing .

Others who signed have doubled down , though, saying that free speech and debate is a core tenet of liberalism, and that only by continuing to engage with and argue against opinions that we find uncomfortable will society make progress towards being more just and free.

One of The Good Project’s core principles is that personal views on contentious issues and dilemmas are influenced by the values that each of us believe are important, values such as those contained within our value sort activity . For example, an individual who values honesty above all else may choose not to cheat on a test; someone who values material well-being may choose to take a well-paying job they don’t enjoy simply to get a higher salary.

On a political level, Jonathan Haidt (who also signed the Harper’s letter), a social psychologist at New York University, has proposed moral foundations theory as a way to explain our policy preferences and reactions to social debates. Moral foundations theory proposes six core universal tensions that influence our views of ethical questions:

Care vs. harm

Fairness vs. cheating

Loyalty vs. betrayal

Authority vs. subversion

Sanctity vs. degradation

Liberty vs. oppression

Haidt’s research has shown that political preferences in the United States are tied to these foundations, with liberals prioritizing the care/harm and fairness/cheating dynamics above others and conservatives valuing all six foundations more equally. In the same way that differences in values cause people to make different individual decisions, the prioritization of moral foundations causes people to come to different political conclusions, aligning themselves with certain ideas, parties, or policies. 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 care, but oppose debt forgiveness for educational loans for reasons of fairness.

Perhaps the debate sparked by the Harper’s letter is a conflict between moral foundations of liberty and care playing out on the U.S. national stage. Should the liberty of free speech be valued at all costs, even if it causes harm to particular people or marginalized groups? Or should care be valued at all costs, even if it completely silences people from being able to express alternative viewpoints with liberty? Where is the line between these two extremes?

When I complete the value sort exercise , my most important values include “openness,” or being receptive to new ideas, and “pursuit of common good.” Perhaps this is why my opinions on this debate may feel frustratingly “in the middle” in an era of ever more polarized conversation on social media and a climate in which extreme views get the most attention in our media.

In my view, no person is entitled to have their opinions go unquestioned, and the panic surrounding “ cancel culture ,” which some of the signatories are likely reacting to, seems unfounded. Individuals with public platforms, including the letter’s endorsers, should always be prepared to defend their stances to others, such as those on social media who may disagree with their stances, sometimes in large numbers in a way that can be overwhelming. This is not “canceling,” but is a form of debate in itself. At the same time, we should not simply silence opinions we disagree with, or dole out extreme punishments for making mistakes. Changing other people’s values often takes engagement and convincing, not berating and silencing. As The Better Arguments Project (with which The Good Project recently collaborated) and their “ Five Principles of a Better Argument ” illustrate, debates require participants to listen passionately, embrace vulnerability, and make room to transform, even when we absolutely disagree and want to take a stand for our side.

However, I am only a single individual, and the majority view on these issues is likely to decide how care and liberty are to be prioritized and debates over free speech are to be resolved, if at all, since the fault lines represented by the moral foundations have existed in American society for centuries. Additionally, individual sectors, such as journalism, may develop new standards regarding speech that will set the norms for that field and the actors within it. For now, the answers to the questions I pose are difficult to discern, as we seem to be in the middle of a culture shift that will define the bounds of acceptability for years to come.

When does free speech “cross a line”? What consequences should an individual face for crossing that line? At what point could stifling free speech or shaming particular speech become dangerous? What values are most important to you in forming these opinions? If you are outside the United States, are there parallel or similar debates occurring in your country?

Recommended Reading: The “free speech debate” isn’t really about free speech

Join Pilot Waitlist

Home » Blog » General » Cultivating Respect: Key Principles and Strategies for Fostering a Respectful Environment

Cultivating Respect: Key Principles and Strategies for Fostering a Respectful Environment

Welcome to my blog! In today’s post, we will be exploring the importance of cultivating respect in social emotional learning and discussing key principles and strategies for fostering a respectful environment. Respect is a fundamental value that plays a crucial role in creating positive relationships and building a harmonious community. By understanding and practicing respect, we can create a safe and inclusive space for everyone to thrive.

Understanding Respect

Before we delve into the principles and strategies, let’s first define respect and understand its significance in fostering a positive environment. Respect can be defined as a deep admiration for someone or something based on their qualities, achievements, or abilities. It involves treating others with kindness, consideration, and dignity, regardless of their differences.

Respect is essential in social emotional learning as it promotes empathy, communication, and cooperation. When individuals feel respected, they are more likely to feel safe, valued, and understood. This, in turn, leads to stronger relationships, improved self-esteem, and a sense of belonging within a community.

It is important to differentiate respect from tolerance and acceptance. While tolerance involves acknowledging and accepting differences, respect goes a step further by actively valuing and appreciating those differences. Acceptance, on the other hand, implies embracing others as they are without judgment. By cultivating respect, we create an environment that goes beyond mere tolerance or acceptance, fostering genuine understanding and appreciation for one another.

Key Principles for Fostering Respect

Now that we have a clear understanding of respect, let’s explore the key principles for cultivating respect in ourselves and others.

Self-respect: The foundation for cultivating respect in others

Respect starts with self-respect. By promoting self-awareness and self-esteem, we can lay the foundation for respecting others. Encouraging individuals to recognize their own worth and strengths helps them develop a positive self-image and a sense of confidence. Through self-reflection and personal growth, individuals can better understand their emotions, values, and boundaries, leading to more respectful interactions with others.

Empathy: The gateway to understanding and respecting others

Empathy is a crucial skill for fostering respect. By developing empathy skills through perspective-taking, individuals can understand and appreciate the experiences, feelings, and perspectives of others. Encouraging active listening and open-mindedness allows individuals to connect with others on a deeper level, fostering understanding and respect for diverse viewpoints and backgrounds.

Communication: Building respectful interactions through effective communication

Effective communication is essential for building respectful interactions. By teaching assertiveness and conflict resolution skills, individuals can express their thoughts, needs, and boundaries in a respectful manner. Promoting active and respectful dialogue encourages individuals to listen attentively, validate others’ feelings, and respond thoughtfully. By fostering effective communication, we can create an environment where everyone’s voice is heard and respected.

Strategies for Creating a Respectful Environment

Now that we have explored the key principles, let’s discuss practical strategies for creating a respectful environment.

Modeling respectful behavior

Leading by example is a powerful way to promote respect. By demonstrating respectful behavior in our words and actions, we inspire others to do the same. Treating others with kindness, fairness, and inclusivity sets the tone for respectful interactions within a community. By modeling respect, we create a positive ripple effect that encourages others to follow suit.

Establishing clear expectations and boundaries

Setting clear expectations and boundaries is essential for maintaining a respectful environment. By establishing guidelines for respectful behavior, individuals know what is expected of them and can navigate interactions with clarity. It is equally important to address disrespectful behavior promptly and consistently. By addressing such behavior, we send a clear message that disrespect is not tolerated and reinforce the importance of respect within the community.

Promoting diversity and cultural understanding

Celebrating differences and fostering inclusivity is key to creating a respectful environment. By promoting diversity and cultural understanding, we encourage individuals to appreciate and learn from different perspectives, traditions, and backgrounds. Providing opportunities for cross-cultural learning, such as cultural festivals or guest speakers, allows individuals to broaden their horizons and develop a deeper understanding and respect for others.

Resources for Cultivating Respect

If you’re interested in further exploring the topic of respect and social emotional learning, here are some recommended resources:

Books: “Respect: A Girl’s Guide to Getting Respect & Dealing When Your Line Is Crossed” by Courtney Macavinta and Andrea Vander Pluym, “The Respect Dare: 40 Days to a Deeper Connection with God and Your Husband” by Nina Roesner
Articles: “Teaching Respect: How to Foster Respectful Behaviors in Children” by Amy Morin, “The Importance of Respect in the Workplace” by Susan M. Heathfield
Websites: EverydaySpeech.com, CASEL.org

You can also access downloadable PDFs and guides on fostering respect on EverydaySpeech.com. These resources provide practical tips, activities, and worksheets to help individuals develop and practice respect in their daily lives.

Cultivating respect is essential for creating a positive and inclusive environment. By prioritizing respect in our personal and educational settings, we can foster strong relationships, enhance communication, and promote empathy. Remember, respect starts with self-respect and extends to others through empathy and effective communication. Let’s continue the journey towards a respectful environment and make a positive impact on ourselves and those around us.

Start your EverydaySpeech free trial today and access a wide range of resources to help you cultivate respect and social emotional learning in your personal and educational settings.

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.

Phil Eastwood Books

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.

Coaching Team Members in Your Workplace to Successful Outcomes

Handcuffs to Handshakes: The Remarkable Journey Continues

Use V.A.K Learning Styles to Mentor Your Team

Team Dysfunction – How to Unlock Your Team Success

Build a Work Culture To Cultivate High Performing Teams

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Freedom of speech and LGBT rights: Americans’ views of issues in Supreme Court case

A majority of Americans think business owners should be able to refuse to provide services in situations where providing them may “suggest support for beliefs about lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) issues” to which they have personal or religious objections, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to provide insight into Americans’ views about a prominent issue currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. We surveyed 5,079 adults from March 27 to April 2, 2023. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and its methodology .

In earlier surveys, the public has expressed positive views of the impact of legalization of same-sex marriage and broad support for policies aimed at preventing discrimination against transgender Americans.

A bar chart showing that 60% of Americans say business owners shouldn’t have to provide services if it may conflict with their LGBT beliefs.

But in a question reflecting the arguments in a pending Supreme Court case, 60% of Americans think business owners should not have to provide services if it might signal support for beliefs on LGBT issues that they oppose, according to the survey conducted in early April. Around four-in-ten (38%) say business owners should be required to provide services in these situations.

The Supreme Court case centers on a challenge to Colorado’s public accommodations law by website designer Lorie Smith, who says the law violates her right to freedom of speech by requiring her to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.

The oral arguments in the case highlighted the competing rights at issue. Smith’s attorney said her client’s complaint is based on the message being conveyed by her work, not the customers who may be affected. However, Colorado’s solicitor general said that by ruling in favor of Smith, the court would undermine the state’s accommodations law and open the door to discrimination because of a person’s race or religion, in addition to their sexual or gender identity.

The survey question does not ask whether business owners should have the right to discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people. Rather, it asks whether business owners who object to providing services that could suggest beliefs on LGBT issues – such as a “designer of wedding websites who has objections to same-sex marriage” – should be required to provide these services or be able to refuse to do so.

Views by party, religion

A bar chart that shows White evangelical Protestants most likely to say business owners should be able to refuse services that might conflict with their views on LGBT issues.

As with opinions on same-sex marriage and transgender issues, there is a wide partisan gap in views of whether business owners should be able to refuse to provide services if it conflicts with their views on LGBT issues. Republican and Republican-leaning independents overwhelmingly side with business owners who object to providing services in these situations (82% vs. 17%). By a smaller margin (59% to 40%), Democrats and Democratic leaners say business owners should have to provide services in these cases.

Opinions also differ by religious affiliation. For example, while 83% of White evangelical Protestants say business owners should be able to deny services in situations where it could conflict with their beliefs, just half of religiously unaffiliated adults say the same.

Note: Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and its methodology .

Free Speech & Press
Gender & LGBTQ
LGBTQ Acceptance
Partisanship & Issues
Religion & LGBTQ Acceptance
Religious Freedom & Restrictions

Most Americans favor restrictions on false information, violent content online

Most u.s. journalists are concerned about press freedoms, the role of alternative social media in the news and information environment, more so than adults, u.s. teens value people feeling safe online over being able to speak freely, journalists sense turmoil in their industry amid continued passion for their work, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Age & Generations
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Economy & Work
Family & Relationships
Immigration & Migration
International Affairs
Internet & Technology
Methodological Research
News Habits & Media
Non-U.S. Governments
Other Topics
Politics & Policy
Race & Ethnicity
Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Australia edition
International edition
Europe edition

Salman Rushdie warns young people against forgetting value of free speech

Author also discusses prospect of second Trump presidency and writing about his stabbing in launch event for his book Knife

Salman Rushdie has warned young people against forgetting the value of free speech and discussed the “very big and negative” impact of a second Trump presidency in a rare public appearance since his stabbing.

The Indian-born British-American author of books including the Satanic Verses and Midnight’s Children also discussed the attack in 2022 that left him blind in one eye during a Q&A at an English PEN event at the Southbank Centre .

“I have a very old-fashioned view about [free speech],” said Rushdie, appearing by video from his home in New York to mark the launch of his new memoir, Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder . “The defence of free expression begins at the point at which somebody says something you don’t like.

“It’s a very simple thing, but it’s being forgotten. That is what’s enshrined in the first amendment … In the US, you feel there’s a younger generation that’s kind of forgetting the value of that. Often, for reasons they would believe to be virtuous, they’re prepared to suppress kinds of speech with which they don’t sympathise. It’s a slippery slope. And look out, because the person slipping down that slope could be you.”

Rushdie said academia in America was “in serious trouble … because of colossal political divisions. And everybody is so angry that it seems very difficult to find a common place.”

The Booker-prize-winning author, whose books have been translated into more than 40 languages, discussed the prospect of a second Trump presidency with the author and critic Erica Wagner and encouraged young people in the US to “not make the mistake of not voting”.

He said: “The impact would be very big and negative. He’d be worse a second time around, because he’d be unleashed and vengeful. All he talks about is revenge. And that’s a bad policy platform, that you want to be president to deal revenge against your enemies.

“In New York, people had got the point of Donald Trump long before he ever tried to run for office. Everybody knew that he was a buffoon and a liar. And unfortunately, America had to find out the hard way. I just hope they don’t fall for it again.”

Rushdie was about to give a talk at the Chautauqua Institution in New York state on 12 August 2022 when a man rushed on stage and stabbed him about 10 times. “I saw the man in black running toward me down the right-hand side of the seating area,” he recalls in his new book . The writer was hospitalised for six weeks.

On Sunday, he said he hadn’t been able to think about writing for six months, but then it struck him that it would be “ludicrous” to write about anything else.

He described the difficulty of penning the first chapter, “in which I have to describe in some detail the exact nature of the attack. It was very hard to do.”

Knife, the writer said, was the “only book I’ve ever written with the help of a therapist. It gave me back control of the narrative. Instead of being a man lying on the stage with a pool of blood, I’m a man writing a book about a man live on stage with a pool of blood. That felt good.”

Rushdie also spoke about the postponement of the trial of his attacker, Hadi Matar . He said Matar’s not-guilty plea was “an absurdity” and that he would testify at any future trial. “It doesn’t bother me to be in the courtroom with him. It should bother him.”

after newsletter promotion

In Knife, Matar is not named, but referred to as “the A”. Rushdie said he was inspired by a Margaret Thatcher line about “wanting to deny the terrorists what she called the oxygen of publicity. That phrase stuck in my head. I thought, ‘This guy had his 27 seconds of fame. And now he should go back to being nobody.’

“I use this initial A because I thought there were many things he was: a would-be assassin, an assailant, an adversary … an ass.”

However, Rushdie said, “the most interesting” part of the book to write was the 30 pages of imagined dialogue between him and his attacker.

“I actually wanted to meet him and ask him some questions. Then I read about this incident where Samuel Beckett was the victim of a knife attack in Paris by a pimp. He went to the man’s trial, and at the end of it said to him: ‘Why did you do it?’ And the only thing the man said was: ‘I don’t know, I’m sorry.’ I thought: if I actually were to meet this guy, I would get some banality.”

So Rushdie decided it would “be better to try to imagine myself” into the head of a person who chose to attack a stranger despite reading “no more than two pages of something I’d written”.

‘There is in my mind an absence in his story,” he said. “This is somebody who was 24 years old. He must have known that he was going to be wrecking his life as well as mine, and yet he was willing to commit murder. He’s somebody with no previous criminal record and not on any kind of terrorism watch list. Just a kid in Fairview, New Jersey. And to go from that to murder is a very big jump.”

Salman Rushdie
Southbank Centre

More on this story

Knife by Salman Rushdie review – a life interrupted

‘Why didn’t I fight? Why didn’t I run?’: 10 things we learned from Salman Rushdie’s Knife

Knife by Salman Rushdie review – a story of hatred defeated by love

‘I can’t explain it’: Salman Rushdie says his survival in knife attack was a miracle

Salman Rushdie has lost sight in one eye and use of one hand, says agent

Drastic rethink of security likely in wake of Salman Rushdie attack

Salman Rushdie’s grave fears for Indian democracy published in PEN anthology

Iran denies role in Salman Rushdie attack but claims author is to blame

Salman Rushdie ‘road to recovery has begun’ but ‘will be long,’ agent says

If we don’t defend free speech, we live in tyranny: Salman Rushdie shows us that

COMMENTS

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
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 ...
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.
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.
Pinky Ghelani: Respect & Values
Respect & Values. 37,119 views | Pinky Ghelani | TEDxYouth@BrookhouseSchool • November 2018. Pinky talks about self love and self respect. TED is supported by ads and partners. Watch next. TED is supported by ads and partners. Explore. TEDx. TED Fellows. TED Ed. TED Translators. TED Institute. The Audacious Project.
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
Mastering the Art of an Easy Speech on Respect: Insights from a Social
Respect is a fundamental value that plays a crucial role in our social interactions. It is the cornerstone of healthy relationships, effective communication, and positive social emotional development. ... Mastering the art of an easy speech on respect is not only a valuable skill but also a powerful tool for creating positive change in our ...
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 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 Good Values
1-minute Speech on Good Values. Ladies and Gentlemen, 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.
How do you define Respect?
Respect (lite) is in play when being polite, considerate and mindful of another person. It can also be demanded from another as a mark of deference to their rank, seniority, experience or standing in the world. We see it in statements like: "respect your elders", "show a little respect", or "with all due respect".
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 ...
Why mutual respect makes free speech better
Why mutual respect makes free speech better. Originally published on July 20, 2020 in the Daily Princetonian. When historians look back on 2020, they will undoubtedly see it as a year of great strife and important change. America's national reckoning with racism, carried out amidst a deadly and still unfolding pandemic, has uncovered long ...
The Power of Respect: Exploring the Impact and Benefits of This
The Impact of Respect. Respect has a profound impact on our well-being and relationships. When we feel respected, we experience a sense of validation, acceptance, and self-worth. This positive self-perception contributes to our overall mental and emotional well-being. In social settings, respect fosters a positive and inclusive learning ...
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 ...
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.)
Top 270 Engaging Value Speech Topics (Updated 2024)
Top 15 Engaging Value Speech Topics On Leadership Values. Integrity in Leadership: The Cornerstone of Trust. Empathy and Compassion: Essential Traits of Effective Leaders. Courageous Leadership: Making Ethical Decisions. Diversity and Inclusion in Leadership. Servant Leadership: Putting Others First.
The Debate Over "Free Speech": What Role Do Values Play?
Others who signed have doubled down, though, saying that free speech and debate is a core tenet of liberalism, and that only by continuing to engage with and argue against opinions that we find uncomfortable will society make progress towards being more just and free. One of The Good Project's core principles is that personal views on ...
Cultivating Respect: Key Principles and Strategies for Fostering a
Cultivating respect is essential for creating a positive and inclusive environment. By prioritizing respect in our personal and educational settings, we can foster strong relationships, enhance communication, and promote empathy. Remember, respect starts with self-respect and extends to others through empathy and effective communication.
The Value of Respect in the Workplace
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.
Freedom of speech and LGBT rights: Americans' views of issues in
Around four-in-ten (38%) say business owners should be required to provide services in these situations. The Supreme Court case centers on a challenge to Colorado's public accommodations law by website designer Lorie Smith, who says the law violates her right to freedom of speech by requiring her to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.
Salman Rushdie warns young people against forgetting value of free speech
Salman Rushdie has warned young people against forgetting the value of free speech and discussed the "very big and negative" impact of a second Trump presidency in a rare public appearance ...