A Free Speech Divide Summary

The purpose of this news article was to bring light to a topic that adults and non-millennials probably would not comprehend and or understand otherwise about the current generation and what they gravitate towards. Examples of this could be an elderly parent or grandparent wondering why their child/grandchild loves social media so much or a young person being curious of which app they use the most. The article is mostly focused around college and high school students. The research study further goes on to explain why this trend is happening through questions, graphs, and exact numbers. It goes on

Under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause a public flag burning in protest of a recently enacted law would protected because it is a form of expression (Hall, 2015). The Supreme Court has recognized more than just spoken words are protected rights under the Free Speech Clause, and freedom of expression through acts are included, so flag burning is a protected right (Hall, 2015). Next, an advertisement for potato chips found on a billboard is also protected under the Free Speech Clause. The advertisement is considered visual and written expression, which is a protected form of expression (Hall, 2015). Last, the placing of a hand over one’s heart while the national anthem is played is another form of nonverbal expression (Hall, 2015).

Though elders may scold the Millennials for being stuck in a plastic universe filled with social media and indirect communication, they fail to see what we, the youngest generation, may have to offer. In past times, the population had lacked an awareness that we are now able to grasp with our fingertips. Thanks to Millennials and some of the generations previous to us, all things are worthy of discussion, even if we choose to do so on a screen instead of through our voices. From music to television, movies to blog posts, society as we know it today is much more progressive than ever before.

Free speech definitely seems as though it’s being frowned upon nowadays, especially in America- land of the free- or so it was anyway. In case you weren’t fully aware, free speech is a bit of a controversial topic now. It’s kind of taken the ‘It’s all fun and games until someone gets hurt’ approach. You can say whatever you want, but the second it offends someone you’re looked down upon. Criticized by everyone for simply stating what was on your mind.

I recognize your acknowledgment that freedom of speech is nothing more than the public society that have a conflicting opposition. I also understand that there is a line people will tend to cross when they become exasperated during a normal dispute in beliefs, and one party will usually concede from the conversation by insulting somebody directly. When two people can have conflicting arguments about topics that are debated on television news, it is in good practice for both parties to take the others opposing story into consideration. Although it is should not be received as evidence that you are being forced to agree with and depart from your initial statement. I have seen many people attempt to scrutinize others for believing in Christ, but

Hate speech is often misunderstood because it can be classified as either careless or intentionally hurtful. Many people interpret careless statements as acts of aggression, but with good reason. It would be false to say that the freedom of speech has never been manipulated to inflict damage upon others. Questions have been risen of what hate speech is and if it should be allowed to be viewed by public access. Alan M. Dershowitz delivers an enumerative definition of the term by asserting all speech that criticizes another’s race, religion, gender, ethnicity, appearance, class, physical or mental capabilities, or sexual preference. However simply defining hate speech by listing out its various forms only amplifies its

rotects 1. The rights or reputations of others,national security,public order, public health,morals. The freedom of speech law does not protect incitement murer, sale of pornography to children and hateful speeches or anything of that sort. In the United states people are free to critizie religion and government because it is not illegal and it isnt hurting

Is the Freedom of the press really “free” when it comes bearing stipulations and regulations? Should we as citizens then live as a democratic society where freedom of speech and press is completely unregulated? For those readers who say yes, would you then be willing to legalize types of speech like slander or defamation of character and reputation? This is precisely the tricky and delicate balance that democratic societies like the United States often have to weigh in which different social values, for example a right to privacy or a right to not have your reputation falsely tainted, are on one end of the scale and constitutional values such as an unabridged freedom of speech or press are on the other. It is first important to point out that “defamation” is just a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. Written defamation is called "libel," and spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" or a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong. The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. If you believe you are have been "defamed," to prove it you typically have to show there's been a false statement published to an audience about you, and it somehow injured your reputation. Public officials and figures have less protection under defamation laws, though, which means that in order for them to prove a defamation claim, they must also show that the speaker acted with

Artists across music genres are at the forefront of new protest songs in response to the rise of President Donald J. Trump and his words in the media. One political track, titled “Land of the Free” by Jo-Vaughn Virginie Scott, speaks to society through a bouncy beat in contrast to its blunt, politically-charged lyrics. Brooklyn based rapper Jo-Vaughn Virginie Scott, otherwise known as Joey Bada$$, released his single “Land of the Free” on January 20, 2017, the day of President Trump’s inauguration. According to Scott, “Land of the Free” was inspired by African-American civil rights leaders such as Marcus Garvey, Dr. Umar Johnson, and Malcolm X (Scott, 2017, Land of the Free). In the song, Scott discusses the racism and prejudice today towards minority groups, especially African-Americans. He also touches on how former President Barack Obama’s presidency was not enough to cause big enough change on the inequality in America. The message in the track, along with the correlating album, “All-Amerikkkan Bada$$”, challenges Americans to speak up and “start a new coalition against corrupt politicians” (Scott, 2017, Land of the Free). Using the cluster analysis method, the song’s word choice is accurately analyzed since clustering the words gives the lyrics a fresh perspective on the political meaning, and it helps evaluate Scott’s motive for wanting change. Scott critiques the political indifference America has towards the ongoing issue of inequality using the key terms free, just,

For National Football League owners to look past the national anthem protest can be understood because their business is all about football,not so much about politics, and with the protest fans are left to figure out what's right and wrong with certain players kneeling during the national anthem. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell sent a letter to the owners to basically tell them that he would like for all the players to stand for the anthem and hope that they can “move past this controversy” and allow football to “bring people together” again.

With everything that’s been happening in the news as of late, my opinions on NFL football players kneeling during the national anthem is that there’s a time and a place. And during the national anthem at a football game is not the time or the place to protest police brutality and racism.

The United States of America has come to be synonymous with the land of the free. This is almost entirely due to the rights granted by the first amendment to the Constitution. Most people would refine that statement further by stating that what truly makes the Unites States free, is the freedom of expression. The ability to speak and do what one pleases is a luxury that the citizens of very few countries enjoy. Americans tend to take this as mark of pride, yet another reason that America is the best; however, the ability to say anything can be extraordinarily harmful. Unfortunately, in the past few years hate speech and “incidents of racist and xenophobic harassment” have expanded (Okeowo). The problem with the unyielding support of free speech in the US is that it allows the law to fail to adequately protect those who are the target of hate speech. Not only does it harm through hate speech, but in a time full of alternative facts, not knowing if something is the truth or not can be detrimental. Because of this, there must be limitations on free speech because the right cause people harm through hate speech cannot outweigh the right to liberty that others have.

The foundation of the United States of America can be boiled down to 3 historical documents. Those 3 documents are the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights serves to protect the rights of the individual. From the freedom of the press to the freedom to bear arms. One of the most debated rights or freedoms was the right to free speech. Americans have debated what exactly the right to free speech entails since the bill of rights was written in 1792 by James Madison. Strictly speaking, freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech . . .” (U.S. Constitution). What exactly free speech protects or doesn’t protect has evolved over the course of America’s history. Free speech is one of the most important individual rights and therefore when free speech is possibly threatened or infringed upon it is a big deal especially when the person in Question who could possibly be impinged on Free Speech is the President of the United States. The situation in question surrounds the NFL players protesting the National Anthem through various actions. Many people felt that the players were disrespecting the flag, the country, and the soldiers who fight to protest the country. President Trump responded to this situation during a September 22nd rally in Alabama stating that

“If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” implemented by youth, authorities has limited the right to free speech in schools, in order to “protect” societies generations from reality. However, the limitation of free speech is unjust as it revokes America’s constitutional rights, for with each item we restrict, a piece is worn away from America’s identity. Although it may not seem possible with due time the nation of the United States will transform into the dystopian society children read about in fictional novels. Therefore, the belief to enforce restrictions on the common masses’ voice is to oppress man’s humanity.

In the historical year of 1787, the United States Constitution was signed. The very first amendment giving United States citizens freedom of speech. The founding fathers understood that free speech was the most important aspect of the country. They believed every citizen should be able to express his or her beliefs without fear of prosecution or punishment. Two hundred and thirty years later, in 2017, the most important constitutional right is being challenged by the so-called “College Left.” The challengers are Free Speech Zones. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), Free Speech Zones force anyone with an opinion to fill out a form ten days in advance, wait for his or her opinion to be approved, then speak only in the Free Speech Zone. If a student dares say his or her opinion outside of the zone, if the college deems it “hateful,” he or she could be expelled. Free Speech Zones have done nothing to help the nation and have only hurt its people, causing political splits, brainwashing, and created even more tensions in the country; therefore, all of the Free Speech Zones that remain on campuses today must be removed.