The documentary, Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech, shows us just that: stories from a range of people who have danced on the line of what is considered “free speech,” a first amendment right. The first amendment, according to the US Constitution, reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The two stories that jumped out at me were the stories told by Debbie Almontaser and Chase Harper. Though each of their stories are very different, each story has a similar lining to it in regard to the …show more content…
On the day after an event called “Day of Silence,” an allied event with the LGBT community to, “peacefully protest the discrimination and harassment faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth in schools." (Eagleforum), he decided to “respond” to the event. Harper then put tape on a plain black shirt and wrote phrases such as, “Be ashamed, our school embraced what God has condemned,” and, “Homosexuality is shameful. Romans 1:27”. According to the film, a teacher asked him to remove the tape or to see an administrator. Harper was threatened with suspension and expulsion for his act that he considered a violation of his first amendment …show more content…
Though in the ultimate sense, he does have a right to proclaim those thoughts, they were proclaimed on school property. Public high schools have rules implemented about anti-distraction, dress code rules, and anti-bullying. By attending this school, he has agreed to follow these rules and to abide by the implied contract that the district sets for students. I believe that there is a line between what should be considered “freedom of speech” and what is “demeaning speech”. Getting his message and opinions across is possible without belittling or demeaning other people. If this case did not take place in a public institute, I believe that my views on his punishment would be different but he blatantly violated several rules that all students must follow. These rules are put into place to limit chaos and that is why his punishment was valid in this particular
Matthew's father appealed the school district's actions on behalf of his son to the federal district court. He alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. The District Court held that the school's sanctions violated respondent's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that the school's disruptive-conduct rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the removal of respondent's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule makes no mention of such removal as a possible sanction.
Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his banner and suspending him for 10 days. The controversial decision has led followers of the case to question the future of student speech rights.
The case also states “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District). Because the students didn 't necessarily disrupt the education process, their First Amendment freedom of speech should not have been violated by the school officials.
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
The First Amendment of the United States gives citizens the five main rights to freedom. Freedom of speech is one of the rights. If people did not have the freedom of speech there would be no way of expressing one’s self and no way to show individuality between beliefs. This Amendment becomes one of the issues in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Supreme Court case that happened in December of 1969. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines there were five students that got suspended for wearing armbands to protest the Government’s policy in Vietnam. Wearing these armbands was letting the students express their beliefs peacefully. Many people would consider that the school did not have the authority to suspend these petitioners because of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
He is also discriminated by his teachers and others at school due to his feelings of not participating in the national anthem “Some smart-ass. I stuck him in the corner. Thinks he can pull that shit. The kid’s got no respect, man.” (Rodriquez 19). His teacher becomes furious, because the boy does not want to say the anthem like the other students. He feels obligated to say the anthem, and many readers can relate this aspect with the United States Constitution, where every human being is supposed to have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but...
Because it is a Constitutional right, the concept of freedom of speech is hardly ever questioned. “On its most basic level [freedom of speech] means you can express an opinion without fear of censorship by the government, even if that opinion is an unpopular one” (Landmark Cases). However, the actions of Americans that are included under “free speech,” are often questioned. Many people support the theory of “free speech,” but may oppose particular practices of free speech that personally offend them. This hypocrisy is illustrated by the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was protested by many, but ultimately successfully defended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The residents of this predominantly Jewish town which contained many Holocaust survivors were offended by the presence of the Neo-Nazis. However, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, who...
The First Amendment protects our rights of free speech and assembly, the independence of the press, and prohibits official establishment or unfair criticism of any particular religion. Free speech rights can be thought of as having two parts, the right to have free access to ideas, and the right to express ideas freely. The right to calm assembly goes with free speech given that demonstrations and other political activity are protected as expressive behavior. While government actions threaten all these rights stated by the First Amendment, it is our free speech and assembly rights which are most at risk. The USA PATRIOT Act contains provisions that will criminalize people's legitimate expressions of their political views. For example, the Act creates a new category of crime; domestic terrorism blurs the line between speech and criminal activity. Section 802 of the Act defines domestic terrorism as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal laws" that "appear to be inten...
Since this country was founded, we have had a set of unalienable rights that our constitution guarantees us to as Americans. One of the most important rights that is mentioned in our constitution is the right to free speech. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
...o school. The dissenting opinion simply argued that freedom of speech is not to be used as a disturbance. Therefore, those students’ right to expression or speech was not violated because it interfered with the classroom’s learning. There is a time and place for everything, and freedom of speech should not be used everywhere.
A high school in Chattanooga, Tennessee suspended a student for wearing a jacket that depicted a Confederate flag. The school had already banded the flag prior to the student’s suspension, for fear of racial backlash. In a slim one-vote margin, the court upheld the school’s decision, solely for the possibility that racial retaliation could ensue. The student’s parents did appeal the decision, but the court deemed that this was not a violation of the student’s freedom of speech or expression.
Upon meeting with the vice principal, he was told that he could not practice his religion in school if it was offensive (Shouting
Earlier this month in April, student protestors rioted at Berkley University because they did not want certain Conservative guest speakers to be able to give speeches at the university due to some of the speakers comments being inappropriate. According to the nonprofit organization committed to defending civil liberties named The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), "One worrisome trend undermining open discourse in the academy is the increased push by some students and faculty to 'disinvite' speakers with whom they disagree from campus appearances" (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education). While the protesters were practicing their first amendment right to petition, the students were infringing upon the Conservative speakers freedom of speech which is unconstitutional. Just because the protesters may have disagreed with the speakers comments, does not mean that theys hould have prevented them from being able to express them. This is similar to the novel 1984 because the protestors controlled and censored what was able to be said at Berkeley University, just like how in the novel the Thought Police controlled what citizens said just because The Party disagreed with certain perspectives and didn’t want certain information to be