Sarah Nehme R. v. Keegstra (against Queen) Mr. Keegstra was a high school teacher who was fired from his job because he taught his students that Jews attempt to destroy Christians and how they are responsible for chaos. If students were to argue his opinion, they would receive lower marks then those in favor. A parent read the notes on her child’s paper and complained to the school board. He was then charged under section 319 (2) of the criminal code for promoting hatred towards his students. At trial, Keegstra’s lawyer argued that they had violated his Freedom of expression but the trial judge disagreed because the charter rights provide equal protection among individuals. Since they believe he was promoting hatred among a group of people; the jury convicted that it was intentional promotion of hatred. Keegstra then appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court but his conviction was brought back. At Keegstra’s trial, the court needed to decide if the expression given by him portrayed a non-violent meaning. They were to also decide if they were to restrict his freedom of expression. As mentioned, the trial judge believed that Charters rights deliver equal safety, and therefore answering the decision of whether or not they should …show more content…
Four out of the seven judges disagreed while the three agreed with the decision of the Court of Appeal .They believed that section 319(2) infringed section 2(b) of the Charter, which was restricting the individuals’ freedoms they deserved, because an addressed speech that might be offending may be perceived as an expression that should be protected under section 2(b). Although the infringement that one section of the Charter had over the other, the judges concluded that there wasn’t a similarity between the effects of the freedom of expression and the objective. Hence, Keegstra’s conviction was
In the majority opinion, Justice White wrote “Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were” The court also noted that the paper was a sponsored newspaper by the school which was not intended to be seen by the public, but rather for journalism students to write articles based off of the requirements for journalism 2 class, and all subjects must be appropriate for the school and all its
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=41>. . N. p.. Web. The Web. The Web. 14 Jan 2014.
Matthew's father appealed the school district's actions on behalf of his son to the federal district court. He alleged a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and sought both injunctive relief and monetary damages. The District Court held that the school's sanctions violated respondent's right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that the school's disruptive-conduct rule is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the removal of respondent's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the disciplinary rule makes no mention of such removal as a possible sanction.
mentioned that they believe that the decision of this case should be treated as an administrative law instead of a constitutional (Supreme Court of Canada). In addition, they mentioned that a decision or order by an administrative body (in this case the Commission scolaire) “cannot be equated with a ‘law’ within the meaning of section 1 of the Charter (Supreme Court of Canada, 2006). In other words, the Oakes test is best used in a constitutional law that are “prescribed by law” and should not be used to administrative tribunals (Supreme Court of Canada, 2006). In addition, since this case started with an administrative decision, it should have continued with the same approach (Supreme Court of Canada, 2006). However, judges still chose to use the Charter because the primary issue was whether the decision infringed freedom of religion (Gratton, 2008) and not if the “decision maker exceeded its statutory authority in making the decision” (Gratton, 2008). Deschamps and Abella JJ. explained that the reason that the constitutional analysis should apply to laws and not the application of law and since the issue was to determine whether the school board’s exercise of power is reasonable (Canadian Human Rights Reporter, 2013), they determined that the schools board made an unreasonable decision since they did not consider the right of freedom and accommodating safety measure (Supreme Court of Canada,
His argument was block by block and he started with explaining the common belief of what the “right to speak freely,” by quoting the well known saying by Voltaire “‘I wholly disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the right your right to say it.’” This is the definition that most people tend to agree with; however, after displaying the original definition he uses logic and rationale to deconstructs the ethics of people and depict the accurate interpretation of the “right to speak, “ by using tone, syntax, literary devices, and essay organization to give the most impactful article possible. By starting the the definition of the norm and ending with the true interpretation, “we must begin by realizing that, because freedom of discussion improves our opinions, the liberties of other men are our own vital necessity.” By ending on this absolute note it creates a space for the readers to contemplate on his
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the students’ first amendment right was violated. They were not able to express their opinions freely. The first Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” (Classifying Arguments in the Cas...
The court stated the appellant’s statements were false concerned issues that were important to the public’s attention. The statements were neither shown nor could be presumed to interfere with the appellant’s performance of his teaching duties or the school’s operation (Oyez, n.d.). In the matter of false statements, the Supreme Court looked back at New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The school board was unable to prove the statements were malicious in nature.
From the opening sentence of the essay, “We are free to be you, me, stupid, and dead”, Roger Rosenblatt hones in on a very potent and controversial topic. He notes the fundamental truth that although humans will regularly shield themselves with the omnipresent First Amendment, seldom do we enjoy having the privilege we so readily abuse be used against us. 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”.
The Court finds through the O’Brien test that symbolic speech is protected only if the speech does not undermine the interests the government institutions uphold. We observe a clear example of how the O’Brien test is applied in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and in what way this case can attest to the unconstitutionality of Section 3 in the Identification and Registration Act. In this case, the Court decided that “as long as speech does not disrupt the educational process, government has no authority to proscribe it” (262). This reasoning could be applied to Irene Ryan v. United States as well because the symbolic speech Ryan took part in had no effect on threatening the interest the government has established and the interests the law displays. Therefore, Ryan’s action is protected and Section 3 provides an unlawful “authority to proscribe it” due to the fact that her speech posed no threat to the government
"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
...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.
As found in the Charter, when an action suggests meaning, through a non-violent form of expression, it has an expressive content and is embedded under the word “expression”. Thus, the hate propaganda against the Jews by Keegstra is a form of non-violent crime of expression. The charges against Keegstra were ultra vires as section 2 of the Charter protects all content of expression. This section protects all content regardless of the meaning, no matter how offensive it may be (page 4). The hate propaganda that was directed at the Jews should not be considered as an expression in the form of violence because violence requires physical contact. In section 2(b) there are exceptions regarding expression in a violent form, which only applies to expression passed across through physical harm (page 2). Considering this, threats of violence are not omitted from meaning of expression under section 2. Hate speech is not analogous to violence. Although the meaning it conveyed was offensive, it was not from the way the message was formed but the meaning that was attached to it. Society is democratic and everyone is entitled to his or her right to freedom of expression, however the Charter does not state that people have the right not to be offended. Section 2 (b) guarantees “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression”. The minority found that the expression conveyed meaning which means it is protected by s.2 (b) of the
Phelps, welcomed the notion that members of the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to use their First Amendment rights. However, Justice Alito maintained that the manner in which the church expressed themselves does not constitute First Amendment protections because “[t]hey first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability.” Justice Alito argued that the picketing done by the church caused Snyder grave emotional distress and damage given that Snyder was mentally vulnerable at a moment where a father loses their son. Justice Alito argued that neither Snyder nor his son were public figures. Therefore, Justice Alito pointed out that the church chose to exploit the emotional vulnerability of a private individual. According to Rosalie Levinson of the Suffolk University Law Review, the Court’s ruling on Snyder v. Phelps shows that “the government’s only valid interest is in ensuring peace and tranquility, whereas the real harm posed by fighting words, including targeted hate speech, is not physical violence, but the emotional damage inflicted by the words themselves.” In other words, Levinson is suggesting that the Court’s decision has made it so that individuals can express themselves to the point of inflicting severe emotional harm to others, so long as the expression is lawful and remains peaceful. Levinson articulates that this notion is troublesome considering that “[h]ate speech . . . is often targeted at the least powerful, most vulnerable segments of our society.” In the view of Levinson, mental harm due to hate speech and verbal dehumanization of individuals, which leads to a negative effect on that individual’s physical health with regards to heightened heart
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...