Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The negative effects of freedom of speech
How does freedom of speech affect us
The negative effects of freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The negative effects of freedom of speech
The right I chose is the first amendment. The first amendment tells of the right of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of press. In other words this amendment is giving people the right to voice their opinion, and physically express themselves in any form, the most popular being clothing. This right guarantees that people may say what they want to whom they want. Although many things people may say can be frowned upon and not agreed with, people can voice their opinions and can use their right for good reasons. This right that we practice every single day, is so important because of the impact it makes on society. Imagine how many times a day you voice your opinion, even though people may not agree with …show more content…
Most of the United States is consumed by the Religion of Christianity. But there are also a lot of people who do not believe in this. United State schools usually surmise that everyone is comfortable with joining along in the Pledge of Allegiance. But this family whatsoever did not want their child to overlook this situation, instead blaming the “government ran school”, to have “government ran employees” enforcing a religion on these children of the U.S. So the problem here is that, are these schools asking that of their teachers to lead these children through a practice of God, to some extent violating their right to the freedom of their religious beliefs, and freedom of expression? This specific example leads the controversy on the opinion that school expectations across the U.S. are violating rights to students many times throughout the day without thinking twice about what they are trying to …show more content…
In 1983 at a school name Hazelwood high school, three students wanted to practice their freedoms through writing in the school newspaper. These students modified the story to make the information not specified toward specific students. Still a teacher removed these articles from the paper claiming that they promoted the teaching of sexual activity because the stories talked about students who were pregnant. The teacher also exclaimed that the articles were talking about students dealing with their parents divorce through disrespectful terms and thought necessary of the parents consent on publishing this information on paper, even though nobody 's names were used and the article wasn 't targeting anyone in the school. Parents all around the world get divorced everyday, so these claims made by this school authority can be considered irrelevant. This situation states the fact that this teacher was trying to take away these students freedom of press due to their personal opinions, when the students in no way were violating anyone 's privacy, and did not in fact need consent by anyone to publish these articles. This very subject shows the importance of the first amendment because of these students trying to play an active role in their school community. They are trying to interest people with a compelling read, but that is being taken away from them because of a teacher’s higher power above these
At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. On May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. The article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce. The following article featured students at Hazelwood East and their experiences as teen parents in high school. Reynolds immediately asked for the two articles to be withheld from that weeks edition. Reynolds had concluded fairness required the father in the divorce article to be informed of the article and given the chance to make any comments. He also stated that changing the names of the girls in the teen pregnancy article may not be sufficient enough to keep them unidentified. Also, the topic is not suitable for younger students. As a result he forbid the two articles from being published. On October 13, 1987 Cathy Kuhlmeier (a student at Hazelwood East High) claimed that Hazelwood East High School was violating her First Amendment rights, and her case was
The daughter of an atheist, Michael A. Newdow, attended public school in the Elk Grove Unified School District in California, where teachers started school days by leading students in a voluntary narration of the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge included the phrase “under God”, which was added to it in 1994 through a Congressional act. The atheist sued the school district in federal district court in the state on the basis that making students listen to the phrase even if they were not willing to participate was an infringement on the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He had argued that his right to influence the religious views of his daugh...
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified effective by Congress. These first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America promised the states certain rights and freedoms which could not be infringed by the government. After all, the founding fathers knew from experience that men in their weakness were often tempted by power. They had become all too familiar with this when under the control of King George in England. Therefore, in order to protect the future people of their beautiful country, they promised certain liberties which could not be taken away. Every single one of these freedoms is important for the United States of America. However, the second amendment is especially important to our nation because it allows the people to protect their freedom and defend themselves and the common good against an overreaching government.
In this case, the court ruled that the administrators of schools can edit the content of school newspapers. This court case is just one of the many examples of how the schools are able to sway and control what their students say and what they see, which makes a big impact on the First Amendment rights of all the students who read and who have to write the newspaper. Another case that supports the research question is Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 1987. This case specifically points out that students do not have the rights to make obscene speeches in school.
Separation of church and state is an issue in the forefront of people’s minds as some fight for their religious freedoms while others fight for their right to not be subjected to the religious beliefs of anybody else. Because public schools are government agencies they must operate under the same guidelines as any other government entity when it comes to religious expression and support, meaning they cannot endorse any specific religion nor can they encourage or require any religious practice. This issue becomes complicated when students exercise their right to free speech by expressing their religious beliefs in a school setting. An examination of First Amendment legal issues that arise when a student submits an essay and drawing of a religious
The case Elk Grove Unified School District versus Newdow came about when a student parent, Michael Newdow, an atheist, has a disagreement with the Pledge of Allegiance. Elk Grove Unified School District is a public elementary school where teachers begin the day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is considering being voluntary. Under California law, all elementary schools must recite the Pledge of Allegiance once a day unless those student object due to their religion. As stated before, in 1954 the Congressional Act added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow took it upon himself to review the School District policy referring to the religious portion. This caused Michael Newdow to sue in the federal district court in California, stating making students listen to the Pledge of Allegiance, even if the students do not choose to participate to the word “under God” violates the establishment clause of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment
On December 15th, 1971, the first X amendments to the Constitution went into affect. The first X amendments to the constitution were known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment was written by James Madison because the American people were demanding a guarantee of their freedom. The First Amendment was put into place to protect American’s freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly and freedom of petition. The First Amendment was written as follows;
Education Week talks about the freedom and practice of religion stated in the United States Constitution and how the government has altered that in their article, “Religion in Schools”. They touch base on how “under God” was taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance and elaborate how students can participate in religious clubs outside of school because of the placement of the federal Equal Access Act of 1984.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This quote from Benjamin Franklin illustrates how an emphasis on safety can drastically reduce the freedoms enjoyed by citizens of the United States, especially the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states that “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” However, with active shooter situations such as Columbine; the Tucson, Arizona shootings, which nearly killed former Representative Gabrielle Giffords; and recent situations at Newtown, Connecticut; Los Angeles International Airport; and Westfield Garden State Plaza mall in New Jersey, the federal government has questioned this right guaranteed to us as U.S. Citizens. In Congress, it is a back-and-forth battle between the Republicans, who favor less gun control legislation and a literal translation of the Second Amendment, and the Democrats who would like to see more gun control legislation to protect the safety of citizens. However, more gun control legislation would punish law-abiding citizens, be a direct violation of the Second Amendment, and expand the power of the federal government into areas where the Founding Fathers never wanted it.
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
The First Amendment is the first section of the Bill of Rights and is often considered the most important part of the U.S Constitution because it guarantees the citizens of United States the essential personal freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and the freedom to petition the Government. Thanks to the rights granted by the First Amendment, Americans are able to live in a country where they can freely express themselves, speak their mind, pray without interference, protest in peace and where their opinions are taken into consideration, which is something not many other nationalities have the fortune of saying. The Founding Fathers were the framers of the Constitution of the U.S., and the responsible for the elaboration of the First Amendment. The majority of the Founding Fathers were enlightenment thinkers who were in love with liberty, and thought that basic political rights were inevitable for man’s nature. After having experienced the tyranny from their mother countries, the Founding Fathers carefully constructed the Constitution of the United States in a way where tyranny was avoided and a government for the people, by the people and of the people was developed, which is clearly reflected in the Constitution. At the time of inception of the United States, the Founding Fathers created the First Amendment in order to ensure that the government would not interfere with Americans’ basic civil rights. The rights outlined on the First Amendment were considered so important by these leaders that many states refused to ratify the Constitution of the United Sates until there was a conjecture of amendments that would protect individual rights in the future.
The 2nd amendment “The Right to Bear Arms” has not been brought up to date in over 200 hundred years and it is time that we make the necessary adjustments. Handguns and assault weapons are to blame for many mass killings in America. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Handguns and semi automatic weapons have been used in these massacres. The choice of rules such as exercising the right to further background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons should be the first and foremost concern of both federal and state legislators.
As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...
The 2nd Amendment has been a very controversial topic over the past year with the recent open carry law introduced to the public. This has caused much confusion amongst the right to bear arms and the overlooking Federal government’s role in controlling what it seems dangerous to the public. Our first eight amendments of the Constitution are direct restrictions on the federal government, and the 2nd amendment does not specifically grant the right for people to bear arms in a sense most would have believed. It does however forbid the federal government from infringing on your unalienable rights to defend yourself, it specifically says you shall not be infringed. This targets Congress, the Judicial and Executive branches of government and means they cannot pass a law, or sign anything that infringes on your right to bear arms or defend yourself.
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.