We are Americans, and we demand our rights. And no right is more glorified in our modern society than the fundamental right to “freedom of speech”. American’s believe that their freedom to express their thoughts and beliefs as well as to openly question the government is essential to preserving the rest of their beloved rights. Fortunately for outspoken America, their freedom to speak freely is explicitly protected in the constitution. The first Amendment clearly states that the “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech”.() However, despite the belief that constitutional rights are absolute, there are certain instances where speech rights can be revoked. For example, there is a considerable amount of law that prohibits and protects …show more content…
For example, an angry protester unleashes a string of profanities at a police officer and the officer arrests the protester for disorderly conduct and breaching the peace. In a court of law, the protester argues that his first amendment rights, which include freedom of speech and engaging in offensive expression, were violated. In such a situation, who is right? Were the man’s first amendment rights violated? Or was the police officer acting within the law by arresting the man for using “fighting words”, an unprotected form of speech? This sort of situation forms the basis for a surprisingly complex area of first amendment laws. The constitution protects a wide range of speech that many people will find unpleasant and offensive. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote in the Court’s 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because it finds it offensive or disagreeable.” (Texas v. …show more content…
For example, in the Terminiello v. City of Chicago ruling, the Court gave first amendment protection to Terminiello, an ex priest who gave an anti-Semitic, racist speech which caused a group of protestors to form outside the auditorium he was speaking at. Terminiello was arrested for disturbing the peace after he openly criticized the protesters as well as various political and racial groups. City officials argued that Terminiello could be prosecuted for using “fighting words”, however the Supreme Court overruled the conviction, stating that: “a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.” (Terminiello v. City of
Justice Jackson's disagreement on the ruling of the Terminiello case is supported by many historical examples which demonstrate that freedom of speech is not an absolute right under the law. Although Terminiello had a right to exercise his right under the First Amendment, had the majority carefully considered this principle it should have rejected his claim. In this case, the majority's treatment of Terminiello's case skirted the real issue and did not benefit from true constitutional interpretation.
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 expression can sometimes be abused by saying hateful things, however overall it is positive and beneficial. It allows people to be themselves and have a voice, it promotes thinking and new ideas, it allows for peaceful conflict, it motivates people to make changes, and many other things. As one can see, freedom of expression is one of the main foundations of this country, and is tremendously beneficial to the people in, making Rosenblatt’s argument potent and
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.
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...
protecting the speech with which one agrees but protecting the speech with which one does not.
There have been many cases where exceptions have been made over the first amendment, such as in the Tinker vs. Des Moines Community School District Case. Teenagers by the name of Christopher Eckhardt and Mary Beth Tinker had planned to wear black armbands to their school to show their support for a truce in the Vietnam War. When word reached the principle, of Christopher and Mary Beth’s plan to arrive with the black armbands, the principal created a policy stating that, “any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension.” (The Oyez Project). After being kicked out of school, Tinker’s parents sued them but their case was dismissed due to the fact that the first amendment does not grant one the right to express their opinion at any place nor at any time. Another official claimed that the first amendment is not fully guaranteed to children. While the first amendment may be a boon to the United States, it is not always just. There are limitations, and conditions surrounding the first amendment and our freedom of speech. In Tinker’s case, her armband was seen as disruptive, and distracting to other students, justifying the school’s actions against the student of suspending and eventually expelling
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
When the individual gets attacked verbally because of their controversial statements, they claim that they had the right to speak their mind no matter how disturbing their words were. They use the First Amendment as a cover for their wrong-doings, and that is never okay. They need to be educated on what they can and cannot say. Just because the First Amendment guarantees a person the freedom of speech, does not mean that they are entitled to say whatever they please. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains if an individual were to use “fighting words” then they are automatically not covered under their First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “fighting words” were not constitutional, so they would not be protected under the First Amendment (2). Many people misunderstand that much of their opinions that they speak consists of words that are unclear. More than half of the time the words they use in their statements are considered to be fighting words, for they are rude and ignorant. There is no need for the obscene words that they use to be protected under the First Amendment. They must become aware of their lack of knowledge for what “fighting words” are; furthermore, they
Freedom of speech is archetypally recognised as a basic human right in free and democratic societies. When contending whether speech that may be deemed offensive should be safeguarded one may refer to the judgement of Redmond-Bate v. DPP:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace (Downs 7).
The first amendment ensures us the freedom of speech. The people of this country use that to voice their opinion on issues in our society. What the average citizen doesn’t know is that their first amendment can be revoked in terms of time, place, and the manner they are exercising it. Recently there have been many protests following homicides of black males by the hands of law enforcement. We’ve seen across the country where an officer involved shooting results in violence among the community.
Based on the First Amendment, the government may not exercise any activities that interference freedom of speech of an individual. For Americans, freedom of speech is clearly become the most basic freedom. Everyone has always thinks freedom of speech is a basic right that everyone automatically has when they were born; on the other hand, freedom of speech is experiencing serious growing pains.
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...
If the language is specifically targeting a group, the speech may still be allowed, however, if the speech turns to action in the form of violence, the administration may ban the speaker from speaking. The reason can be found in the Supreme Court case Chaplinsky, where the Court found that if speech was shown to "inflict injury or tend to incite an