Analysis Of Under The First Amendment's Free Speech Clause

A public flag burning in protest of a recently enacted law and the advertisement for potato chips found on a billboard are protected by the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. The behavior of the flag burning is protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech (Hall, 2015). Consequently, the flag burning is considered an expression of one's symbolic speech. The Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is protected under the First Amendment (Hall, 2015). This right applies to protest, demonstrations, performances, advertisements, artistic endeavors all of these are means of expression (Hall, 2015). Notwithstanding, this protects the advertisement on a billboard. The First Amendment protect commercial speech, such as advertising,

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of “free speech zones” has made its way to colleges everywhere. A “free speech zone” is a sidewalk sized place where students are allowed to speak their minds freely on college campuses. I know what you’re thinking. This sounds ridiculous. Why are there specific places for people to speak their minds? Aren’t colleges suppose to be a place where students speak their minds and learn new things? Universities should not be able to put any restrictions on free 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

In chapter five The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech…”(121). This means that citizens expect the government to give them the choice to speak and hear what they want. In addition, freedom of speech can include symbols, signs, and non-verbal

The First Amendment protects any person’s freedom of speech from Congress, state government and local public officials. However, this does not allow individuals to be free in saying anything that they want to say. One example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment are crimes involving speech. If a form of speech is used to commit a crime such as perjury, harassment or extortion, it will not be provided protection by the First Amendment. Another example is Conduct Regulations. Our government has the right to make laws in regards to the specific conduct used in the speech such as stating when, where and how the speech can be provided. These regulations can be upheld by courts as long as they considered content-neutral and are not constraining the expression of ideas. For example, they are allowed to limit the size of collateral used for speech and are also able to limit the level of sound in speech that can be heard at distinct times.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects the freedom of speech, religion, and press form government limitations and over reach. The acts of burning an American Flag in protest, a company’s billboard advertisement, and a person choosing to or not to place their hand over their heart are for the national anthem are all examples of what the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled as expressions of speech and are covered actions by the First Amendment.

"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"(Cornell University Law School.) The First Amendment of the constitution talks about the religious liberties given to the citizens of the United States. It protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference and enforces the “separation of church and state” (Cornell University Law School.) The free exercise clause is another important clause that prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of their religion. There are associations created just for this protection of religious rights. The Christian Law Association was made for many of the instances involving people “experiencing difficulty in practicing their religious faith because of governmental regulation, intrusion, or prohibition in one form or another” (Christianlaw.org) The basis of this research focus’ specifically on the question of the balance between religious rights and the other constitutionally given rights. This paper will go over and define the right’s given and will examine some of the court cases and issues involving the question and balance of religious rights and liberties.

The freedom of speech protected under the Frist Constitution in addition to other beloved values has often struggled in the world with its concept of what’s exactly determined as free speech and what’s not. In other words what’s free speech meaning that a person can state his or her personal opinion as opposed to Hate speech which is meant to offend threatens and insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. It seems that in some circumstances the law has to decide to protect some and not others. Take the case Miller vs Davis (2015) as an example of the law deciding which person to protect. A woman named Miller Davis a country clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky refused to issuance marriage license to same sex couples. She claims to as, doing so would go against her religion and would continue to not give out licenses as she was protected under the Frist Constitution. Davis said in a Kelly File Interview,” Same sex unions destroy the sanctity of marriage”. To some this may have been seen as someone just practicing their right but denying someone their right to marriage based on sexual orientation is a hate crime. That was the difference that made the couple Carmen and Shannon Wampler-Collins and three other anonymous couples file a lawsuit against Davis. The lawsuit claimed that Davis was breaking the law by not giving all couples including same sex couples a license for marriage. Admittedly that’s where this

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment explicitly protects the right to speak: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”. (Cornell, 1st) This right to speak freely is fundamentally linked to the right to be informed, as indicated by the Supreme Court ruling that individuals are guaranteed the right to acquire information under the Free Speech Clause. (22, Miller v. California; 23, Lamont v. Postmaster General) Therefore, from the free speech [jurisprudence/rulings] of the Supreme Court of the United States, the right to obtain sex education may, in fact, pertain to public schools. [On the one hand], [the free speech right] to acquire sex information extends to the curricular decisions made by public schools. This right requires that public schools consider students interest in receiving sex

While he received some standing ovations and applause along the way, his talk went on without any major disruptions, apart from one minor incident at the beginning, when a student unfurled a Confederate flag from one of Memorial Hall’s upper balconies. Responding quickly with his usual witty manner, Carmichael, who had just applauded Vanderbilt University for its commitment to uphold the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee, ensured the protester that he fully supported the expression of his political

Two-hundred and twenty-eight years ago, our founding fathers instituted a previously taboo idea of freedom of speech. Although today’s society differs greatly from society in 1789, the main principles of freedom of speech have been warped into an oasis for discriminatory speech, shutting down others on their personal opinions and beliefs. For example, Native Americans have faced violent oppression for centuries, specifically regarding the Trail of Tears when they were pulled from their homes and settlements and forced to move, and the Dakota Pipeline project, when their homes were invaded by industry itself. Today, colleges and universities have established speech codes and other limits on speech that contradicts

Recent debates about freedom of speech have become more common across the United States. Social media has now made it much easier to see videos or pictures of how students react to certain speakers, all of which have led to a whole separate discussion about fragility of students.

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also

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

The definition of freedom of speech is the right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. (Morse & Mish, 2012) However, one cannot go about just saying whatever they please. There are in fact limitations to what one can say. Some might say that that is unconstitutional, but is it unconstitutional to prevent people from threatening others or preventing others from incriminating another person’s rights. I think not. The Supreme Court is the judge of whether or not a person has or has not broken the law regarding freedom of speech.