The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees basic civil rights, including free speech. However, that doesn't justify Americans strutting around the streets and shouting racist epithets. This same concept also applies to political campaigns. While candidates are permitted to speak openly on all issues, they must refrain from offensive or inappropriate comments directed at other individuals or minority groups. Candidates, especially those running for president, should use non-offensive language and politically correct terminology to discuss controversial issues in order to instill positive change and greater sensitivity in the United States. However, some language watchdog groups have advocated deleting numerous common words, which only obscures communication and destroys the meaning of the message. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Current presidential candidates have faced criticism for their poor language choices, controversial comments, and racist statements. In particular, Donald J. Trump has come under scrutiny for saying that Obama has lost the respect of foreign countries because he is a “weak president who kisses everyone's ass.” As a candidate whose comments are publicized, Trump should be aware that his comments also reach an audience of young children who may be intrigued by his uncensored language. Furthermore, by making lewd and inaccurate comments about Mexican rapists, Trump has earned ridicule from prominent world leaders and potential voters who do not take him seriously. After claiming that Hillary Clinton's inability to satisfy her husband meant that she was unable to satisfy America, Trump justified his action by claiming that he likes to "tell it like it is" and that she believes in candor . By speaking with words that produce the “strongest and most unpleasant affective connotations” and through public condonation of this unacceptable behavior, society can provide “our minds with a greased runway along which we can slide back into patterns of evaluation and unexamined and reactive evaluation”. behavior” (Hayakawa). However, minority and disadvantaged groups should ultimately control the terminology others use to characterize them. Different individuals have different preferences for what they want to be called, but ultimately every individual deserves to feel comfortable with their own label. For example, Nancy Mairs describes herself as a cripple because she believes she is a tough person “to whom fate/the gods/viruses have not been kind, but who can openly face the brutal truth of her existence.” If “cripple” is a precise word, “handicapped” and “disabled” distance themselves from Mair's condition, “widening the gap between word and reality.” Although some disabled people appreciate the use of the term “differently abled”, Mairs admits that the term seems to her to be “verbal rubbish designed, by its ability to describe anyone, to describe anyone”. In these situations, a “politically correct” term that describes everyone in a generalized group ceases to exist; each person within the group personally approves of different terms. In extreme cases, changes applied in the name of “political correctness” have altered “language to the point of obscuring, even destroying its meaning” (Random House). Organizations such as state departments of education, textbook publishers, developers of.