The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights guarantees basic civil rights, including freedom of speech. However, this does not justify Americans strutting through the streets and shouting racial epithets. This same concept also applies to political campaigns. Although candidates are permitted to speak candidly on all issues, they must refrain from any offensive or inappropriate comments aimed at other individuals or minority groups. Candidates, especially those running for president, should use non-offensive language and politically correct terminology when discussing controversial issues to bring about positive change and increased sensitivity in the United States. However, some language advocacy groups have advocated for the removal of many common words, which only obscures communication and destroys the meaning of the message.Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the Original Essay Current presidential candidates have been criticized for poor language choices, controversial comments, and racist statements. In particular, Donald J. Trump came under scrutiny for claiming that Obama had lost the respect of foreign countries because he was a "weak president who kisses everyone's ass." As a candidate whose comments are made public, Trump should be aware that his comments also reach an audience of young children who may be intrigued by his uncensored language. Additionally, by making lewd and inaccurate comments about Mexican rapists, Trump has drawn ridicule from prominent world leaders and potential voters who do not take him seriously. Following his statement that suggested that Hillary Clinton's inability to satisfy her husband meant that she was incapable of satisfying America, Trump justified his action by saying that he liked to "tell it like it is." are” and that she believed in candor. By using words that evoke "the strongest and most unpleasant emotional connotations" and tolerating this publicly unacceptable behavior, society can provide "a greased trail for our minds on which we can fall back into evaluative patterns." and unexamined and reactive reactions”. behavior” (Hayakawa). However, minority and disadvantaged groups should ultimately control the terminology others use to characterize them. Different people have varying preferences for what they want to be called, but ultimately every individual deserves to be comfortable with their label. For example, Nancy Mairs describes herself as crippled because she believes she is a tough person "to whom fate/gods/viruses have not been kind, but who can face the brutal truth head-on." of its existence.” While "crippled" is a precise word, "disabled" and "disabled" move away from Mair's condition, "widening the gap between word and reality." Although some disabled people appreciate the use of the term "disabled people", Mairs admits that the term seems to him "verbal trash designed, by its ability to describe anyone, to describe no one". In these situations, the term “political correctness” that describes everyone in a generalized group ceases to exist; each person within the group personally approves different terms. In extreme cases, changes implemented in the name of "political correctness" have altered "the language to the point of obscuring or even destroying it.".