Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Limiting freedom of speech
Limiting freedom of speech
Freedom of speech in a free society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Limiting freedom of speech
Imagine: no black rights, no women’s rights, no gay marriage, no freedom, no opinions. If we weren’t able to exercise our first amendment by stating our opinion, none of these rights would’ve existed. This is why I agree with the Supreme Court's decision because Westboro protesters addressed matters of public import, on public property, in a peaceful manner, and in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. As long as the protesters abide by these actions, the Westboro Baptist Church should be able to protest military funerals. The Westboro Baptist Church is an congregation that is strictly homophobic and protests places and people who are homosexulally accepting. In this case, they were protesting a military funeral because they believe that the soldier who died, died because America is accepting of gays. They are allowed to protest because under the first amendment, they have the right to state their opinion peacefully. …show more content…
After years have gone by, courts have decided that certain types of speech are not protected. These unprotected types of speech include threats, child pornography, and fighting words. Fighting words are words that can incite conflict. Some say that what the Westboro Baptist Church was saying was fighting words. However, anyone can consider anything a fighting word if the people using them are opposing your beliefs. This is why I don’t think that fighting words were actually used and why they should be protected. Public debate topics such as gay rights should also be protected by the first amendment because one side of the story just because the judges don’t agree with what they are saying. The opinion/belief cannot be taken into account when the Supreme Court is making a decision, only the
This example of a Supreme Court case shows that the court is not above politics. Even though most Americans, including government officials, practiced some form of Christianity, the judges were not willing to compromise the information in the Constitution for the popular beliefs of individuals. I agree with the Supreme Court in its decision to ban the practice of prayer in public schools. Not only does it violate the Constitution, but it encroaches on our freedom of thought and action. Being excluded from a public classroom because of personal beliefs does not sound just.
The people that do not support the Dixie Chicks think that they had no right to criticize the government, but they had every right to. Because of the first amendment they are allowed to say exactly what they want to say. One common thing that the protestors would say is shut up & sing, this was also the title of their documentary, which explains their point of view from the comment. This is ironic because the protesters were taking away the Dixie Chick’s freedom of speak, saying that they aren’t allowed to do say things like that, but by doing this they were expressing their freedom of speech. They are saying that Dixie Chick’s that the can’t express their freedom of speech, while expressing theirs. Another important factor that lead to the downfall of the Dixie Chicks is the deregulation of the radio. This deregulation resulted in large corporations taking over almost all of the radio channel. An example is a radio corporation called Clear Channel. This radio went from having 65 radio stations to over 1,000 across the United States. Clear channel owned most of the radios located in the south which was a major factor in the Dixie Chicks issue. The south is known for its high amounts of patriotism making what the Dixie Chicks even more offensive to them. Clear Channel took a lot of offense, being from the south, from what the Dixie Chicks said and gave the fans no choice if they wanted to hear them, so they
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.
On the morning of December 29, 1890, many Sioux Indians (estimated at above two hundred) died at the hands of the United States Army near Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Reservation. The Indians were followers of the Ghost Dance religion, devised by Wovoka, a Paiute prophet, as a spiritual outlet for Indian repression by whites. The United States Army set out to intercept this group of Native Americans because they performed the controversial Ghost Dance. Both whites’ and the Sioux’s misunderstanding of an originally peaceful Indian religion culminated in the Battle of Wounded Knee. This essay first shows how the Ghost Dance came about, its later adaptation by the Sioux, and whites’ fear and misunderstanding of the Dance, then it appraises the U.S. military’s conduct during the conflict, and American newspaper coverage of events at Wounded Knee.
The First Amendment states, "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." Essentially, the First Amendment is supposed to give citizens the right to have free speech, free choice of religion, and the right to assemble peaceably. There are limitations to the First Amendment because every person interprets the rights differently. The Nazis most likely assumed that it was all right to hate people and say it in public, but the Jewish people disagreed, believing that hatred is unacceptable. Where is the line drawn when it comes to people being able to speak their minds? Justice Murphy, a member of the Supreme Court in 1942, had a say on what is considered allowable under the First Amendment and what crosses the line, and he stated,
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.
Since the First Amendment protects chiefly speech on public issues, depending on the case, there could be special protection for the defendant. It is not necessarily clear what defines a public issue, but it can generally be considered if it is “relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community.” (Snyder v. Phelps) It is unimportant if the statement is inappropriate or controversial. Since the matter of Westboro’s signs relate completely to public matters, it cannot be directly assumed that phrases were meant to directly attack Snyder or his family. Also, while the statements made by Phelps and Westboro as a whole might be outrageous and crude, they are views of public concern. (Snyder v.
Imagine when you were a little child, your whole family was taken from you by people who forced themselves into your country and took you to a concentration camp. While you were at this camp you watched your family members starve to skin and bone. As a young child you saw people shot on the spot, babies head’s bashed out and young mother’s separated from their young children. When the Americans finally came to liberate you you immediately want to celebrate with your family members but learn that they are all dead. You spend the rest of your life living with the thought that your whole family is dead and it is all the Nazis fault. How would you feel to know that some of the surviving Nazis are still out there living a free life and getting away with all of the crimes they help put in motion?
Should the First Amendment stop protecting hate speech? In Derek Bok’s “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, he argues that hate speech should be protected as censorship would be against the First Amendment. He declares “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communications is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree is offensiveness against the potential value of communication.... if we were to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (Bok 67) What Bok is attempting to say is that we can technically declare anything as offensive. The idea of hate speech is varying on the opinion of a person rather than law.
"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
Deviant behavior is anything that a person does that is out of the norm. Robbing banks, stealing cars, and assaulting individuals are easily considered deviant behavior, but can people be deviant while still being within their legal rights and without breaking any laws? One congregation that does not break any laws, but is considered to be out-of-line, is the Westboro Baptist Church. The Westboro Baptist Church has been called offensive and their actions are frowned upon by many. Is the Westboro Baptist Church actually a deviant group in disguise?
The Snyder v. Phelps et al Supreme court case in 2011 was one of the most controversial cases in United States Supreme court history. Fred Phelps, the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, took his followers to picket the Snyder’s son. Snyder’s son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in action. The Westboro Baptist Church came holding up signs stating such things as, “Thanks God For 9/11”, or “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”. After seeing these signs, the grieving family attempted to take them to court, hoping to silence them. Originally Snyder won, until through multiple appeals the case eventually found its way in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of Phelps 8-1.
The reason why the justices argue about whether Ben’s t-shirt was speech is because some of them believe that the message and symbols on one’s clothes are not speech, and they believe that those messages and symbols are simply one personal interest of what to wear, and it is not related to speech at all. They have to clarify what is speech; otherwise, they cannot define whether the first amendment protects it or not.
Freedom has a price. For free speech the price is political dissent like flag burning, for freedom of religion you have to tolerate beliefs that differ from the masses. the right to assemble means that the nazis and clan can assemble too. The founding fathers felt that to protect these freedoms the population had to be armed. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of cars, and there's no movement to ban them. is the right to drive cars that much more important than protecting our freedom.
According to Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute, Snyder v. Phelps dealt with the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech and whether to protect or restrict speech dealing with protesters at military funerals. The Westboro Baptist Church was founded in 1955 by Fred Phelps. Since the past twenty years, the church has made public its position on homosexuality in American society and in the military by suggesting that the United States was overly tolerant and military veterans who died in combat did so because the American people were sinners. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church had before protested at the funerals of hundreds of deceased military veteran who died in combat. These protests usually took place on public land such as