Many of you are probably wondering, “will Students for Peace end up in jail or will they be freed from blame?” We heard arguments from both sides of this important case that show if they are found guilty or not. After much careful consideration, the side that was more persuasive in their arguments was New York City. New York City did a great job at presenting their different arguments that show that Students for Peace was disturbing peace. They declared that Student for Peace was using violent fighting words that disturbed the young kids around them. NYC clearly showed that it was the wrong time to protest this violent topic in front of young children. They proved that freedom of speech is limited during certain times and Student for Peace was broadcasting their thoughts in a place that freedom of speech is limited.
Was student for peace using fighting words? Of course! NYC distinctly displayed that SFP were using fighting words that disturbed those around them. Counselor Amanda said that Student for Peace was shouting rude remarks and handing out obscene graphic images that disturbed families and the kids around them. She stated that Justice Murphy said, “ There are certain well-defined and narrowly-limited types of speech, which states prevent or punish without any Constitutional problems. These include lewd and obscene words, profanity, libelous speech, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words.” This was incredibly persuasive because this obviously shows that if you are using fighting words they can arrest you “without any Constitutional problems”. In other words, Freedom of Speech is clearly limited when you are using fighting word or words that are hateful towards others. This shows that Student for Peace should be arre...
... middle of paper ...
...t was erroneous. The Freedom of Speech decides whether or not if SFP is guilty or not, so the Freedom of Speech have rules that are unheard of, but they are still there.
Therefore, it is clear that the standpoint that is more persuasive is NYC. NYC undeniably shows that Freedom of Speech is limited in many ways. Freedom of Speech is limited when the type of words you use, such as fighting words or hate words are said towards a specific group of people. It was also the not right time to protest in a park filled with young children. Moreover, they show that Freedom of Speech can be limited depends on the time and place. You should all be proud of your hard work in this trial. We are incredibly impressed with your strong arguments that help prove your point. We can all learn a lesson from this case: think before you speak, it can help you get out of a lot of trouble.
Throughout America, people place a high value in their freedom of speech. This right is protected by the first Amendment and practiced in communities throughout the country. However, a movement has recently gained momentum on college campuses calling for protection from words and ideas that may cause emotional discomfort. This movement is driven mainly by students who demand that speech be strictly monitored and punishments inflicted on individuals who cause even accidental offense. Greg Lukianoff and Johnathan Haidt discuss how this new trend affects the students mentally and socially in their article The Coddling of the American Mind published in The Atlantic Monthly. Lukianoff and Haidt mostly use logical reasoning and references to
319(2) of the criminal code lead to the infringement of his rights of freedom of speech as guaranteed by s. 2(b). However, his appeal got denied and he was anyways tried and convicted. It was after this that he went to the Court of Appeal of Canada who decided that his freedom of speech is indeed being suppressed by the s. 319(2) of the criminal code and thus the case was further sent up to the Supreme Court of Canada. The question to be answered by the Supreme Court here was that whether or not his freedom of speech infringed by the s. 319(2) and if so, how can it be protected by s. 1 of the
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=41>. . N. p.. Web. The Web. The Web. 14 Jan 2014.
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.
Because Schneck was accused of committing a crime by peacefully protesting and exercising his freedom of speech, the court has set an unsaid standard of what is appropriate to say and what is not. This unsaid standard in itself violates the First Amendment and is reason for the case ruling to be overturned. By overturning the case, citizens will once again have full freedom of speech. Schneck did not violate the clear and present danger test or the Espionage Act, as he was told. Instead, he simply advocated his cause through peaceful protest and by using his right to free speech.
1. Was Terminiello's right to free speech, which is protected under the Federal Constitution, violated, as applied in this case?
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.
It’ unanimous! With those two words, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that ‘fighting words’ were not protected under the constitution and etched out an exception to the First Amendment known as the Fighting Words Doctrine (Clark). The doctrine came out of the 1942 Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. New Hampshire State court found Chaplinsky guilty under its public law that “prohibited another person from expressing offensive, derisive and annoying words and names to anyone else in a public place” (Hudson) commonly referred to as ‘fighting words.’
The purpose of this paper is to explore the topic of freedom of speech and free speech zones on college campuses. This paper will answer the questions: Why have so many Universities who protect academic freedom, retreat into fear of freedom? Are school officials afraid of debate and disagreement? Are they trying to keep people (outside the zone) from hearing words that may offend someone? These questions will be answered through analyses of previous court cases, journal articles and news articles.
Herbeck, Tedford (2007). Boston College: Freedom of Speech in the United States (fifth edition) Cohen vs. California 403 U.S. 15 Retrieved on March 2, 2008 from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html
Charles R. Lawrence III adresses the matter in his essay “The Debate over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims,” by providing the perspective of those on the reciving end. He explains that “racial slurs are particularly undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetuator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialoge, but to injure the victim” (628). This argument is justified because some people do take their freedom of speech as far as offending someone because of their race, cultural, and social beliefs. As Cinnamon Stillwell proved in her essay, “Mob Rule on College Campuses,” some students do become bullies when their beliefs are challenged. Stillwell illistrates a situation that occurred at Columbia University when conservative Jim Gilchrist was invited to speak but was unable to because rioting students did not allow him. Stillwell then goes on to say that “Apparently in their minds, niether Gilchrist nor anyone else with whom they disagree has the right to express their viewpoints” (623). This can be applied to both sides because both of them seem to believe that the opposing belief has no right to speak especially when it is controversial. Lawrence mentions that “whenever we decide that racist speech must be tolerated because of the
...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.
In December 1965, an issue was caused by teachers’ in violating students’ freedom of speech. In December some students from Des Moines Independent Community School District, in Iowa were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest against the American Government’s war policy in support Vietnam (Richard, Clayton, and Patrick).The school district pressed a complaint about it, although the students caused no harm to anyone. Students should be able to voice their opinions without the consequences of the school district.
Protesting can be harmful and create problems in the community. About two hundred or more protesters have been charged with more violent crimes than flag burning such as torching cars, broken windows and assaulting police officers. Although some believe flag burning should not be prohibited, other violent crimes from these protests indefinitely need to be stopped (Martelle). This issue of protesting divides the community and provides a conflict between people. Even though free speech proponents see the important symbolism
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...