In America we are given certain rights by the government to follow. Such as, the first Amendment, that “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 people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.” So, this right is given to us as Americans we should be able to say and do as we please. Yet, what the amendment fails to leave out is that we are not allowed to infringe on our fellow Americans rights to do the same. In, The People vs. Larry Flynt, Larry took the First Amendment right to a new level. When examining Larry Flynt, there were mixed opinions between the masses, some said he was a crusader for the First Amendment, while others said he was a horrible smut peddler. Larry Flynt unpleasantly exploited and abused …show more content…
He was never afraid to use the first amendment to protect himself, and that it was his right to do so. He never swore on the bible for he believed it to be against his nonreligion, but if a person is a crusader for the first amendment than abiding by the laws of the court house would be simple. While many say that he was exercising his first amendment right, he was actually mocking the courtroom and its practices. As Ellen Goodman stated “he’s the catch that comes with the freedom of speech.” The Constitution gave us the privilege of freedom of speech, but Larry Flynt used it to be his own right. Larry Flynt was not a crusader for the first amendment because he couldn’t abide by the rest of the rights every American did. He went up against judges, courts and defendants to push his own right to free speech. This is why the Constitution was built to save us from someone like Larry Flynt stepping on our right to free speech. Yet, he still seemed to get away with doing
“Why are we so angry” is a name of an article by Dianne Hales. She is a former contributing editor for Parade magazine and she is a published writer. This article is from a Parade magazine article she wrote in 2001. In the article Dianne Hales talks about a social phenomenon that more and more Americans are getting angrier and rage full more than before. Then they are pushed to the breaking point from this angry and rage. Dianne Hales then gives several recommendations which could help you calm down from the anger and rage. The ideas that Dianne Hales writes about in this article I feel is true and should be taken seriously and should be followed.
What are people looking for? Wendell Berry writes in his book, “What are people for?” a thesis that modern culture is destroying the agricultural culture. He feels that technology is seen and used as the easy way to produce food faster and more efficiently. With this modern way of farming comes the idea that we need to work smarter, not harder, which is not always true.
The first amendment is being abused by more people now than ever before. People like to shout, “First Amendment” when they find themselves in a controversial situation because of certain things they wrote or spoke about. People are being less responsible for their actions and are blaming the constitution for their slip-ups. In “Free-Speech Follies” by Stanley Fish, Fish addresses the First Amendment issue. Fish claims that people use the First Amendment to try to get themselves out of trouble or criticism and that they need to start being responsible for their actions and need to start having a sense of judgment.
In the "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. responds to an article by eight clergymen, in which he explains the racial injustice in Birmingham, and reasons why King's organization is protesting for Civil Rights. He introduces himself and his actions at the beginning of his letter. He states that the purpose of his direct action protest is to open the door for negotiation on the Civil Rights. He tries to convince his audience by providing evidence in order to gain his audience to be involved in his movement and support him. He also highlights police actions against nonviolent Negros and crimes against humanity in Birmingham city jail.
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.
"The words of the first amendment are simple and majestic: 'Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.' The proposed constitutional amendment would undermine that fundamental liberty."
Charles Lawrence has been active in his use of the First Amendment rights since he was a young boy. When confronted with the issue of racist speech, he feels that it needs to be diminished by society as a unit, because this discrimination does not just effect one person, but society as a whole.
Although this amendment gave people the right to express their opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as to how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech. According to Roger Rosenblatt “since freedom is the way people's minds were made to be”, freedom of speech is important to speak one's mind in a way that expresses his/her opinion, even if this opinion does not seem to convince others. In my opinion, without freedom of speech, the United States would have failed to be such a powerful country as it is today. . Although your opinions might disagree with others, you still have the right to voice them. For example, Roger Rosenblatt indicated that when a basketball player for the Denver Nuggets, was suspended from the league because of his religious conventions that stopped him from playing in the league.
... his action could actually be really harmful for the society. Gitlow defended him as not guilty merely depends on the part of the context of the First Amendment of Constitution about U.S citizens’ freedom of speech. It is actually make a deliberate misinterpretation out of the context. Gitlow’s claims that he is innocent might because of his less awareness and misunderstanding of the laws. Or, he might believe that the faults of the Constitution would help him escape from the punishment. However, in my point of view, Gitlow fail to consider the primarily goal of the U.S Constitution that is to protect the best profit of its majority.
The documentary, Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech, shows us just that: stories from a range of people who have danced on the line of what is considered “free speech,” a first amendment right. The first amendment, according to the US Constitution, reads: “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.” The two stories that jumped out at me were the stories told by Debbie Almontaser and Chase Harper. Though each of their stories are very different, each story has a similar lining to it in regard to the
...e constitution, but natural rights are. (Brennan 1). The government cannot prohibit ones expressive conduct due to the reactions society may hold. (Brennan 1). Due to the evidence that the majority opinion has, Johnson was inside his First Amendment rights.
Munro, Neil. "Larry Flynt’s Relentless Campaign." The National Journal. 9 January 1999. Vol. 31, No. 1-2. Pg. 44.
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...
According to “Freedom of Speech” by Gerald Leinwand, Abraham Lincoln once asked, “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its people, or too weak to maintain its own existence (7)?” This question is particularly appropriate when considering what is perhaps the most sacred of all our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, freedom of expression. Lincoln knew well the potential dangers of expression, having steered the Union through the bitterly divisive Civil War, but he held the Constitution dear enough to protect its promises whenever possible (8).