"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
Today, people will proclaim that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is protected under law, however, in some circumstances, one’s free speech can become limited under the First Amendment. Although, it can become limited, however, it ultimately depends on the entire situation to where it is actually being used. From the United States Constitution, the First Amendment states,” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment in 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” (Cotten & Wolohan 456). In this assignment, a student was provided with two different scenarios involving the First Amendment at a privative high school to where they decisively act
Miguel Raymundo Hernandez Dr. Jack Hull Ethic in Government Nov. 30,2015 The Protection of Hate Speech Hate speech, According to American Bar Association is "that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, other traits (American).” Hate speech can include “insulting nouns for racial groups, degrading caricatures, a threat of violence, and literature portraying individual as animal-like. There has been long debate whether to protect hate speech in the United States. The hate speech has been protected because it been fundament principle of the 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.
The First (1st) Amendment of the United States (U.S.) Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791, “guarantees to all Americans regardless of age, ethnicity, disability, faith, or gender, the freedom of speech, freedom of press, the right to assemble, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition Congress (Government) for a redress of grievances” (Kanovitz, 2010). However, as these types of speech are protected by the 1st Amendment, there are other kinds of speech that are not. The framers of the 1st Amendment intended for this amendment to be broad as to allow the amendment room to adapt to future changes in societal diversities as we live today (Kanovitz, 2010). In these protected rights are solid foundations that secures the opportunity to openly share ideas, thoughts, and various differences in points of view, encouraging interaction...
For twelve years, I've had my hand on my heart, and I've pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I've pledged to the Republic for which it stands, with liberty and justice for all. When a place in our country does not fulfill those standards – liberty and justice for all – then it ceases to be the America that I pledged allegiance to. Besides teaching students the skills that are required to perform their dream jobs, colleges also teach students how to be part of ones community as a citizen, and how to be part of America rather than just exist in America. To cultivate oneself, however, they need room to grow, to learn, and most importantly, the right to think and speak their mind.
On December 15, 1791, the first amendment- along with the rest of the Bill of Rights- was passed by congress. Although the amendment allows verbal freedom to the citizens of America, many argue that it also comes with great risks.The possibility of both mental and physical harm to citizens through the practice of free speech should be taken into consideration. Limiting free speech has potentially saved lives by monitoring what a person can or can not say that could cause distress to the public (e.g.- yelling “bomb” on an airplane). Others argue that the limitation of free speech will hinder our progress as a nation, and could potentially lead to our downfall through governmental corruption. In a society where the freedom of speech is a reality, one must question the risks and limits of that right.
Freedom of speech in United states are usually protected by the constitution, the only things that are not protected are cases of obscenity, defamation, war words and any form of incitement to start of riots. The other exceptions to the protection of the bill of rights on freedom of speech are harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets and any classified materials belonging to a business establishment or a company (Lieberman, 1999, p. 35). The protections and limitations to freedom of speech also extend to hate speech that is spread through commercial speech. Prior restrain is the point where the government issues a restrain to a speech before it is made. However, the government should be in a position to explain to the Supreme Court the need to restrict such speech. Defamation describes any words used by another party to spread false-hood with an intention of harming their reputation in public. Seduction is a protection act that protects citizens from abusive language that can be used in speeches to cause harm to the public. The Supreme Court needs to have a definite explanation on the need to have restrictions.
The Supreme Court case Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) also helped define when free speech should be limited. In this case 14 people, members of the Communist Party USA in California, were charged with violating the Smith Act, but they argued that simply advocating a change in government wasn’t the same as actively attempting to overthrow the government. The Supreme Court ruled that the Smith Act did not prohibit “advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine.” In other words, it wasn’t a violation of the first amendment to advocate doctrines, but it would be a violation to use free speech to advocate immediate calls to violent action. These three Supreme Court cases show a continuing theme of limiting freedom of speech when it is necessary for the prevention of harm to the general public, or in some cases, to the government, or both, and support the idea that free speech, as protected by the first amendment, has a certain limited scope and is
The recent debate over terrorism and America’s reaction to it, has stirred controversy over the rights of free speech. Since the events of September 11, 2001, a large number of people have admitted that they believe the government should have a say over what is being broadcasted and printed The request for government censorship and suppression of free speech following 9/11, is nothing short of an infringement on our Constitution. As Americans, how can we claim be such strong defenders of free speech, and then turn around and put limitations on what we can say regarding the