Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why schools should not practice censorship
Why schools should not practice censorship
Discuss the right to freedom of expression
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why schools should not practice censorship
Freedom of Speech is defined as the right for people to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. Multiple people believe that freedom of speech has to do with what a person says verbally. This is a false assumption seeing that there is a speech in symbols such as a picture and a “tattoo” (Kendrick). Anyone can see a symbol and immediately believe that it is offensive to their religion, or what they believe, after all, “all speech is symbolic” (Kendrick). Many people are punished for speaking their minds due to the unsafety that people have when speaking freely, considering that they attack a person. There are multiple instances in which freedom of speech might be taken away like when someone wears their belief or exposes themselves …show more content…
Soon after, the high school argued that they have the right to censor speech that would disrupt the educational experience of others (Shouting Fire). In one point of view, the student should have been suspended because he knew that the private event that was supporting gay and lesbian awareness was taking place. His action is frowned upon because the event was private to the LGBTQ+ community. He cannot say that the gays and lesbians are immoral or disordered (Shiffrin). His being there was unnecessary and therefore is not violating his freedom of speech. However, in another point of view, if the event was held for the public and not just the LGBTQ+ community, his first amendment rights had been violated because since his high school was a public school, he could be at the event. Chase had his own beliefs about homosexuality due to him following God and practicing his own beliefs. Therefore, he also has freedom of religion which the government cannot intervene (Campbell). Some may consider what Chase said as hate speech which is not free speech but he made this statement due to his religion. He never attacked the LGBTQ+ community. “Individuals should not be compelled to violate their religious beliefs in the absence of a powerful showing” (Shiffrin). It was his opinion which came from his religious …show more content…
One has to know that in the first amendment, there is no tolerance for hate speech or any kind of speech that attacks a person or group based on race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender. In all of this chaos, many are questioning the deliberative democracy we follow. The fluctuating outcomes each speech case has goes to show that the amendment has to be refined and more specific. The idea of the rights is not absolute. The government marks a line indicating when one takes the first amendment too freely. When an occurrence like so happens, there is chaos and unhappy citizens. Freedom of speech has a boundary that limits people before potentially hurting another person which shows just how weak the deliberative democracy is. The government stops people from opening citizens eyes to a new perspective, hence blocking freedom of speech. An example would be Churchill and his notion about 9/11 and whether or not it was actually a mistake. The government hides things from its people to prevent chaos like shouting “fire” in a movie theater would. They stop the thoughts of potential conspiracies and keep restraining
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.
Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his banner and suspending him for 10 days. The controversial decision has led followers of the case to question the future of student speech rights.
The case also states “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District). Because the students didn 't necessarily disrupt the education process, their First Amendment freedom of speech should not have been violated by the school officials.
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.
After being fired Pickering sued the board of education for the right of free speech granted by the first Amendment and the right to equal protection meaning that he has the right to express himself publicly if he wishes and he has the same rights as everybody else in any conditions. Even though he had the right to free speech, the lower court concluded that as a public employe he has to to abstain himself from making comments about the school. Pickering then protected himself using the 14th Amendment by saying that he is allowed the same rights as everybody (equal rights) under any condition.
Fraser (1986). During a student assembly, Senior, Matthew Fraser gave a campaign speech to elect his friend to student government. Fraser’s speech was rife with sexual innuendo. Consequently he was suspended and his name removed from the list of possible graduation speakers—he was second in his class at the time. In this case, the Court established that there is a monumental difference between the First Amendment protection of expression for “dealing with a major issue of public policy and the lewdness of Fraser’s speech” (“Key Supreme Court Cases,” 2015). Comparatively, Foster’s high school points out that there is a monumental difference between Foster’s desire to express his individuality and impress girls, and the school’s desire to regulate the serious public concern of gang activity within the school. Indeed, in the petitioner’s application of Tinkering and Chalifoux court cases, the defense notes, in both First Amendment cases the students were addressing a major public issue—political and religion statements. Foster’s message of individuality, however, decidedly lacked a message that would safeguard his First Amendment
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.
1. The measure of a great society is the ability of its citizens to tolerate the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. As Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Columbia). This right to express one's opinion can be characterized as “freedom of speech.” The concept of “freedom of speech” is a Constitutional right in the United States, guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution:
In the first amendment, it is stated that all people have the Freedom of speech, religion,
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
Freedom of speech is the right of civilians to openly express their opinions without constant interference by the government. For the last few years, the limitations and regulations on freedom of speech have constantly increased. This right is limited by use of expression to provoke violence or illegal activities, libel and slander, obscene material, and proper setting. These limitations may appear to be justified, however who decides what is obscene and inappropriate or when it is the wrong time or place? To have so many limits and regulations on freedom of speech is somewhat unnecessary. It is understood that some things are not meant to be said in public due to terrorist attacks and other violent acts against our government, but everything should not be seen as a threat. Some people prefer to express themselves angrily or profanely, and as long as it causes no har...
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
When the individual gets attacked verbally because of their controversial statements, they claim that they had the right to speak their mind no matter how disturbing their words were. They use the First Amendment as a cover for their wrong-doings, and that is never okay. They need to be educated on what they can and cannot say. Just because the First Amendment guarantees a person the freedom of speech, does not mean that they are entitled to say whatever they please. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains if an individual were to use “fighting words” then they are automatically not covered under their First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “fighting words” were not constitutional, so they would not be protected under the First Amendment (2). Many people misunderstand that much of their opinions that they speak consists of words that are unclear. More than half of the time the words they use in their statements are considered to be fighting words, for they are rude and ignorant. There is no need for the obscene words that they use to be protected under the First Amendment. They must become aware of their lack of knowledge for what “fighting words” are; furthermore, they
In the United States, free speech is protected by the First Amendment in which it states, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion … or abridging the freedom of speech.” Now, nearly 250 years into the future, the exact thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of is starting to happen. Today, our freedom of speech is being threatened through different forces, such as the tyranny of the majority, the protection of the minority, and the stability of the society. Now, colleges and universities in the United States today are also trying to institute a code upon its students that would bar them from exercising their right to speak freely in the name of protecting minorities from getting bullied. This brings us into
Freedom of speech has many positive things, one of which is the help it gives on decision-making. Thanks to freedom of speech it is possible to express personal ideas without fear or restraints; therefore, all the perspectives and options will be on the table, giving people more opportunities to choose from. Nevertheless, everything in life has a limit, and the limit of freedom of speech depends directly on the consideration of the rights of others. People is free of believing what they want, thinking what they want, and even saying what they want, everything as long as they do not intrude or violate anyone else's rights. Under certain circumstances freedom of speech should be limited, and this is more than just a political action, this acts represent the urge for tolerance and the need for respect.