Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The negative effects of freedom of speech
The effects and importance of freedom of speech
1st amendment
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
This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a protesting march Johnson burned an American flag. The research for this paper will allow the reader to examine some of the different ways that free speech can be expressed, to what extent it may or may not be expressed and possibly where free speech may or may not be prohibited. America is a free a nation with a Bill of Rights that provides every citizen of this country the freedom and protection of the inalienable rights granted to them. However, there are certain actions that have stirred controversy as to how far those protections and freedoms can be stretched. Throughout history there have been numerous cases involving the Bill of Rights and the amount of freedom and or protection granted by each one. The First Amendment, the protection of free speech, has garnered much attention due to the increasingly negative and violent expressions America has come to know. The morality and public decency that Americans used to hold dear has been lost. In a world of constant input, Americans have becom... ... middle of paper ... .... doi:10 Supreme Court Schoedel III, R. C. (2012). Morse v. Frederick: Tinkering with School Speech: Can Five Years of Inconsistent Interpretation Yield a Hybrid Content-Effects-Based Approach to School Speech as a Tool for the Prevention of School Violence?. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2012(5), 1633-1664. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.wnc.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=85445691&login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site Summary of the Court Case. (Cover story). (1989). Congressional Digest, 68(8/9), 194-224. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.wnc.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=8910300671&login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2013). Snyder v. Phelps. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_09_751.
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.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
"Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .
"Key Supreme Court Cases: Schenck v. United States - American Bar ..." 2011. 14 Jan. 2014
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.
In a world where terrorism, war, and economic instability are ever looming threats it’s not a wonder why the limits on the freedom of the individual can come into question. This is especially true when the country where these limits are brought into question is one of the world’s leading powers in: democracy, economics, social welfare, military force, and foreign politics in general. This country, of course, is the United States. Unfortunately, even with the country’s democratically centered government, there is still a debate on whether Americans have enough protections for civil liberties or not. A few key areas of argument on civil liberties and hopefully provide enough information to the reader so that he/she may deduce an educated opinion as to whether Americans have enough protection for civil liberties or not.
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.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
"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
BOWERS V. HARDWICK, 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for simply speaking one’s mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one’s mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one’s own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower’s belief will be stronger. The words sound so simple, but without them the world would be a very different place.
Kermit, L. H. "Meyer v. Nebraska." The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. 2005. Retrieved October 17, 2010 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-MeyervNebraska.html
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
Heart of Atlanta v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung. 2003. The Supreme Court Historical Society. 22 April 2003.
Free speech is one of the defining rights that Americans hold dear. However in recent times, many use this freedom abusively to trick, deceive, belittle, and infringe on others’ free speech. The actions that UTM take against this professor and the fact that the professor writing incited more paranoia is, quite frankly, a complete and utter mess. These courses of action by both the “prosecutors” and the “defendant” infringe on both freedom of speech and the students of UT Martin’s peace of mind. This does present a significant question that has been pressed through and through this year. What truly are the limits on free speech and should they even have limits?