In Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University, both the trial and appellate courts found that Delta Chi Fraternity’s skit qualified as expressive entertainment and was protected by the First Amendment. The contested speech occurred during a philanthropy event that involved members of the Fraternity dressing up as women in an “Ugly Women Contest” (pg. 1). One of the men dressed up as, “an offensive caricature of a black woman” (pg. 1). To determine whether the First Amendment protected the speech, the court looked at if the speech in question qualified as expressive entertainment. The expressiveness of the speech is important because, “unquestionably, some forms of entertainment are so inherently expressive as to fall …show more content…
On the other side, the institution argued that the speech in question was mindless, lacking artistic expression and that the First Amendment protections are only applicable if the entertainment has a message likely to be understood by a “particular audience” (pg. 4). To examine whether or not the speech was protected and thus granted First Amendment protection, the court utilized an expressive conduct test from Texas v. Johnson. In this case, it was important to note that the entertainment quality, or lack thereof, is not examined through the test. The test states that expressive conduct occurs when “the intent to convey a message can be inferred from the conduct and the circumstances surrounding it” (pg. 4). The circumstances surrounding this particular event are that it was a philanthropic event that partnered fraternities and sororities together to raise money for charities. The test qualified the speech as expressive because there was an intent to give a message that could be picked up on by the conduct and circumstances around the speech. Additionally, the court cited Texas v. Johnson again to show that First Amendment protections prevent the government from punishing expressive content just because it disapproves of what is being said. This ruling defeated the institution's argument that the speech was not protected because it was “mindless
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
In a case similar to Fraser, a student was sent home twice for wearing a Marilyn Manson t-shirt with a three-faced Jesus on the back. The t-shirt also referenced biblical statements that were deemed inappropriate and disruptive to the learning environment. The court found that the school had the right to impose action for words or phrases that were considered vulgar and offensive. Just as with the Fraser case, the ethical significance is that students do not have the right to wear articles of clothing that depict messages or images in an offensive, public manner.
While reading Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities, I learned more about the inner workings of Greek Life. I learned that the odds of me finding a sorority are so slim due to my independent and different personality. While I am not good at sticking up for myself, something this book has made me feel is crucial to blend in and conform to an ideal to fit into a sorority, I am too opinionated. There are not many sororities (at least shown in Pledged) that welcome girls who are different, preferring to stay similar. For example, each pledge class would soon like identical within a few months of pledging. Another thing I learned about is the careful planning and manipulation that occurs throughout sororities,
Johnson and his lawyers were dissatisfied with this decision and made an appeal to the Fifth Texas Supreme Judicial District. This appeal, made on May 8, 1985 would be titled as Texas vs. Johnson. The defense argued that Johnson was prosecuted in violation of the first Amendment, clearly states that no law may take away a person's freedom of speech or expression, and of the Bill of Rights and the free speech clause of the Texas Constitution. Johnson argued that in his opinion, flag burning is part of freedom o...
and did not impinge upon the rights of others. In these circumstances, their conduct was
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.
Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. was founded January 13, 1913 at Howard University by 22 Undergraduates. These 22 women were members of an organization known as Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated., but branched off because of different views. The founders of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. wanted more than a social organization and was interested in making the sorority more political. Scholastic and political activism was important to the founders of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. The first political act the members of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. participated in was the Women’s Suffrage March. The Women’s Suffrage March was a march that occurred in Washington D.C. because Women were not
Is the upholding of the American flag as a symbol of the United States more important than the freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment? Are there certain freedoms of expression that are not protected under the First Amendment and if so what qualifies as freedom of speech and expression and what does not? The Supreme Court case of Texas v. Johnson proves that the First Amendment and the freedom of speech are not limited to that of spoken and written word, but also extended to symbolic speech as well. Texas v. Johnson is a case in which the interpretation of the First Amendment rights is at the top of the argument. This case discusses the issue of flag burning as a desecration of national unity and that the flag of the United States should be protected under a law. Texas v. Johnson expanded the rights of symbolic speech and freedom of expression under the First Amendment and was presented as a precedence for future cases along with influencing the final decision on the revision of
...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.
The Texas vs Johnson case didn't drastically change the way people viewed things. Yes, the trial caused a lot of uproar, especially in Texas because of its patriotism, but it wasn't a case in which a law or amendment needed to be changed but rather was a case in which an amendment needed to be understood. Johnson’s act of burning the American flag in front of Dallas City Hall, in order to protest the Reagan administration during the Republican National Convention, was deemed as a sign of “symbolic” speech. Johnson’s act was ruled to be protected by the first amendment because speech was considered more than just the written word. The Supreme Court ruled it as such because of prior cases such as “Stromberg v. California” and “Tinker v. Des
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
If granted the opportunity to become a member of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity. I expected to become a better man once finishing the member in take process. Throughout the process I expect to develop many different skills that I can carry throughout life. I would like to become more professional as well as to enhance my networking skills. I expect to become more hands on in different charity events that I’m not familiar with. I would like to improvement my personal status and security, and the meeting of the everyday demands of living.
...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.
"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
It brings me great displeasure to write this appeal due to the circumstances of my unwarranted suspension from a fraternity I hold dear to my heart. I became a member of the fall 2015 class falling in love with both my brothers and the fraternity. The past year I formed an unbreakable bond and accumulated numeral unforgettable experiences. I even got the pleasure to read The Phoenix and enjoy the beautiful and adventurous history of our fraternity. This all came to a shattering halt when the alumni of the ILBE Chapter persecuted for violating our Membership Agreement.