Is this a good Persuasive Essay?

[Jake]

Please Proofread, I would appreciate any corrections on spelling, format..etc.

Should Free Speech have Limitations?

Many stood in silence to honor the US Ambassador of Libya during the terrorist attack because of an ignorant video released from the US. Specific incidents have happened recently causing violence and even death. In a vast populated country like the United States, it is important to have free speech and keep the liberties the founding fathers created but Americans should exercise these freedoms wisely. Many Americans should realize that freedom of speech is a gift and many people in other countries don’t have the freedom of speech. Too much limitation of freedom of speech would make the US too oppressive and it would be a major turning point for the worse. Free speech should have limitations on certain issues or opinions that may be very controversial, or cause chaos and violence.

When exercise of freedom of speech is used to profoundly, it may affect the rights of other people, especially on social issues such as gay marriage. The free speech incident involving the CEO of a popular American fast food chain “Chik-Fil-A” spoke out against gay marriage causing domestic outrage to the gay population of America. Incidents such as this outrage some and start unnecessary domestic drama- in some cases violence but mainly causes major political parties to speak out and focus on unnecessary domestic actions while larger international problems await. Causing domestic problems because someone exercises free speech to speak their mind is not good for the American society and therefore should have limitations.

If freedom of speech divulges through unacceptable opinions such as racism, that should be banned and labeled as a crime. If groups such as the Ku Klux Klan hold protests, protests such as that should be criminal if they condone racism. Obviously racism won’t end, but groups such as the KKK who have the freedom to speak their mind should be restricted to their freedom of speech through protests or media. What does it say about America, the great land of opportunity to diverse cultures, if we have loud media messages/protests?

The biggest worry about freedom of speech is aggravating other international countries. A recent example of this was when the “Innocence of Muslims” video was leaked to many Muslim countries. While the film was created in the United States and posted on Youtube, some speculate that a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda translated the video to Arabic and released it to the public. This video was successful in creating chaos and hate towards the United States. This caused a terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya resulting in the death of the U.S. Ambassador and two other men working in the Embassy. It was unacceptable to make the video in the first place but the makers of the video should have known that people living in countries such as Libya don’t have a freedom of speech and therefore will react very dramatically to a video such as that mocking the Prophet Mohammed. To prevent similar tragic events that happened that day, the “freedom of speech” should be limited!
Its actually double spaced but it doesn't show up on here

[username_hidden]

The first sentence doesn't work, because the grammar is wrong. You are saying that because of the video, people stood silent during the attack, when what you mean is that people stood in silence after the attack that was caused by the video. Try re-writing it something like this.

"Many stood in silence to honor the US Ambassador to Libya, who was killed in a terrorist attack prompted by an ignorant video produced in the US"

A couple of sentences later, you repeat yourself unnecessarily. Instead of saying "freedom of speech is a gift and many people in other countries don’t have the freedom of speech", you can just say "freedom of speech is a gift which many people in other countries don’t have."

There are quite a few other places where your writing needs clarifying or tightening up a bit. For instance, it is not clear what you mean by 'divulges through' in the fourth paragraph, or by 'domestic outrage' in the third paragraph (is 'domestic outrage' a state of being outraged, but only in the privacy of your own home?).

More fundamentally, there is big contradiction in what you are arguing. You say that freedom of speech is 'important' and a 'gift', and that liberty should be preserved. Then you go on to describe the severe limitations that you would put on free speech - basically shutting up everyone who doesn't hold a certain set of approved liberal views and anyone who believes that speaking the truth is more important than having a quiet life. You can't have it both ways. If you believe that free speech is wrong, then don't call it an important gift. And if you do believe it is an important gift, don't argue that it should be so severely curtailed.