The Art of Resistance In the first amendment of the United States’ Constitution, citizens are granted the freedom of several essential rights that allow the United States to be the country it is today. When the Founding Fathers of the United States decided to create this document that laid out the laws of the land, they kept in mind all of the rights that Great Britain did not allow them to possess due to the country’s strict monarch. Included in the first amendment is the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the government. With these three essentials, citizens are allowed to protest and stand up for what they believe in. Though, in today’s world, many think of doing such is frowned upon and those who oppose should …show more content…
It can be hard to find another in the same political party or with similar beliefs, depending on a person’s situation. An advantage to time’s constant change is the evolution of technology. With the use of social media networks, as well as other forms of communication, it is becoming easier and easier to find complementary ideas. Brian Chen from the New York Times says, “Opponents of Mr. Trump's immigration ban, for example, used Twitter and Facebook to rally thousands of people for protests at the nation's airports last month. Similarly, protesters used social media platforms to help coordinate the Jan. 21 women's marches, which by one account constituted the largest day of demonstrations in American history.” (Chen) When referring to President Donald J. Trump’s first few weeks in office, Chen brings up how technology was used to organize the Women’s March on January 21 as well as the marches regarding the immigration ban. It shows that the latest technology has been keeping communities up to speed with events happening around the world. In addition, many Americans have heard about the predicament regarding police brutality. The facts on those occasions have been released online, broadcasted on radio and television networks, and written about in newspapers. Because of such, crowds have gathered near the places where the victims have fallen dead due race-induced police brutality and have begun a movement during this time period. Benjamin Chavis Jr., President and CEO of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, writes, “It is noteworthy that today a growing number of young people are not only marching, but assuming leadership roles in the mass marches in support of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Akai Gurley, Tamir Rice, and Rumain Brisbon.” (Chavis) Marches are an excellent example of how people can congregate together and protest together. In this case, those who believe in the current Black Lives Matter
In America the Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the American people the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Most notably Amendment 1 is known for and most often cited as giving the Freedom of Speech. Even before this amendment was ratified people in the U.S. were protesting, as in the Boston Tea Party. Protesting has been a way to effect change in America. A question to ask is this: is there a right way or wrong way to protest.
Malcolm Gladwell’s article "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will not be Tweeted" raises a significant question about the prospective contribution of web-based social networking to the advent of progressive social movement and change. Gladwell bold declaration that "the revolution will not be tweeted" is reflective of his view that social media has no useful application in serious activism. Contrasting various elements of the “high-stakes” lunch-counter protests in Greensboro, North Carolina in the 1960’s with the “low-stakes” activism achieved through social media, Gladwell concludes that effective social movements powerful enough to impose change on longstanding societal forces require both “strong ties” among participants and the presence of a hierarchical organizations. In contrast, Gladwell characterizes the social networks as an interwoven web of "weak ties" that is inherently devoid of a hierarchy. Gladwell’s prerequisites for social movement are firmly based in strong body of sociological evidence, but his views regarding the nature of online social networks are laughably lacking in foresight and obstructed by a misleadingly selective body of evidence.
The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “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.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.
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.
Freedom of speech and expression is a right given to all Americans under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is a difficult concept to embrace when individuals are faced with ideas they oppose. In this kind of situation, the protection guaranteed to American citizens becomes even more important. The First Amendment was designed not only to protect the freedom to express ideas and sentiments with which one agrees, but also the ideas and sentiments with which one disagrees. It is for precisely this reason that the government should maintain the right of individuals to express their dissatisfaction with the policies of the government through the act of flag burning and not amend the Constitution to make such an act illegal.
For more than 200 years, the First Amendment has been at the heart of United States’ history and most successful research in liberty. The history of America’s nation is the story of the constant struggle to extend the promise of freedom more fully and fairly to each and every citizen. By looking freedom of speech, democratic government is not that important to have it without these rights. People prefer democracy to avoid tyranny or suppression of others. The citizens of the United States need to protect these rights because they are fundamental to the human being to be free, have liberty. What Founding Fathers did is not enough, however, United States’ citizens has to work together for a better place, a better country, a better government.
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...
The first amendment is the cornerstone of our American society founded years ago by our forefathers. Without the first amendment many ideas, beliefs, and groups could not exist today. The first amendment guaranteed the people of the United States the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. Although the first amendment guarantees us, Americans the freedom of speech, we cannot use it to cause others harm. This amendment has helped shaped Americans into what we are today, because of our right to assemble, speak freely, and worship as we please.
“Do as I say, not as I do” say’s the parent to the child who is watching their every move. Leaders may not say it, but their actions show inconsistencies in their leadership. How can leaders truly be trusted is they are not willing to change themselves? How can leaders breakthrough the wall of resistance if they are not willing to engage their employees, dispel the fear factor, and allow themselves to be vulnerable?
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
The first Amendment states “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting… the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”
The first amendment states every United States citizen has the right to press, petition, assembly freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Also, the amendment states the government is not allowed to make any law that breaks the rights of a citizen. In the case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), the argument was if the students’ first amendment was violated, but the public schools are not an appropriate place to express freedom of speech.
Freedom of Assembly; Unites states citizens have the right to peacefully assemble to either make a point or protest against something that don’t agree with it.
Kalev Leetaru, a contributor of Forbes looks at data through web searches and televisions to find out whether the BLM Movement is striving or fading. Through his research he notices that searches for the topic of the BLM Movement on Google and Youtube web searches did not happen until Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson was found not guilty of the shooting of Michael Brown, an African American who was unarmed (Leetaru 2015). However, what really cause the search to rise was when BLM protesters took over Bernie Sander’s microphone who is running in the presidential campaign and was trying to get votes. Therefore, they prevented him from speaking and got their message about “Black Lives Matter” out on the media. This shows that there are times when BLM does not even get to be on the media, which causes them to interrupt presidential candidates to gain their spotlight in media. This is similar to how Jerry Rubin received a subpoena to appear in court, but he utilize that moment and wore the American Revolutionary War costume which earned him a “national reputation” and “launched his career” as a seller of a symbol of being against the Vietnam war (Gitlin 2003: 172). However, instead of an individual, it was a group of people who was protesting about BLM and similar to how Rubin utilize his moments to represent his anti-war “Yippie Group,” the BLM