First Amendment and Free Speech Essay

In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and

Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was heard in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Johnson v. State, 755 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District holding that “Johnson’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated by the statute. States cannot pass laws which take away freedoms that are promised under the United States Constitution, and in passing section 42.09(a)(3), the state had deprived Johnson of his constitutional right to express his views about the government.” Johnson v. State, 706 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1986). The Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District had affirmed the decision of the Dallas County Criminal Court which found Mr. Johnson guilty of desecration of the American flag. State v. Johnson, No. CCR 84-46013-J (Crim. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty. Tex. Dec. 13,

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

Cases that involve the First Amendment in school systems have always been around but the issue of finding a balance with these freedoms is

In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts took note that the Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) ruling decided that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, the Chief Justice also relied upon the precedent set forth in Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) which explained how "the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the rights of adults." Additionally, the rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment," according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988). The special circumstances in Morse v. Frederick were first that the school has a policy that specifically forbids advocating illegal drug use due to the risks it imposes on other students, and second that principal Morse was forced to decide in the moment whether or not she should act.

Back in the year of 1791, when our grand country was at the tender age of fifteen, two gentlemen gathered together to form a written document that would protect their newly attained freedom. These written principles, later know as the Bill of Rights, were penned primarily by George Mason and James Madison. The Founding Fathers of the American public’s home country. It is interesting to note that not only were these two men the authors of Bill of Rights but were also successful in their own careers too. George Mason, a prospering planter in the state of Virginia and James Madison a graduate of the College of New Jersey, known as present day Princeton. Madison was a lawyer by trade, but was driven with a profound interest in ministry. They came together to compose one of the greatest treasures in the nation’s history: the Bill of Rights. In this written expository, this author will be discussing the first of the ten of these amendments: the amendment that guarantees Americans the freedom of Speech. The necessity of free speech and the important values it contains is a main foundation for this country, therefore, Rosenblatt 's argument for the freedom of “expression” is valid because it certifies our right to speak freely, form an opinion, and exercise the correct function of democracy while on American soil.

“The First Amendment in Five Minutes - Video.” Big Think, 12 Aug. 2010, bigthink.com/videos/the-first-amendment-in-five-minutes) the true definition of the first amendment is as such, “The first amendment contains many rights. Which include freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.” Since the integration of this Amendment there have been many changes. New circumstances involving freedom of speech are constantly being reevaluated by the courts. A circumstance involving Floyd Abrams, one of the many advocates who appeared to the supreme court defending this constitutional

In the Denver Posts editorial "Putting up with Hate", the first amendment right of Americans is seriously discussed. A case over funeral protesting reached the Supreme Court. The issue was that a church group traveled to a funeral of a deceased soldier to protest it. The reasons were not because of the soldiers individual actions but because he had served in the army. This sparked the debate on whether this group should be allowed to do what they did. The dispute was whether the first amendment should be protected at all times even when it is a difficult price to pay. The Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment right will be protected at all times. The argument against that was if the speech caused sorrow, it should be ruled illegal. The Supreme Court stated that if they were to stifle the speech of the protesters that it would spark public debate on many other things. The Denver Post also states that the Supreme Court ruled that the protestors obeyed police laws which is staying at least 1,000 feet away from feet from the sight of the funeral.

As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim’s race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal’s freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one’s thoughts, or to express one’s self, they also say that this right is guaranteed to all Americans. But people and organizations who are against these hate groups ask themselves if the first amendment include and protect all form of expression, even those that ugly or hurtful like the burning crosses. The Supreme Court Justices have decided that some kinds of speech are not protected by the Constitution,

The first amendment protects the sort of speech that was at the center of contention in the cases: Cohen v. California, Texas v. Johnson, and Snyder v. Phelps. The amendment protects free speech and prohibits the government that violates the right to free speech. In Texas v. Johnson, the action of burning a flag was considered to be a form of speech which is protected under freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and expression protects actions that may offend the society or individuals. The anger of the society cannot be a justification for suppressing freedom of speech. The First Amendment protected Johnson’s symbolic speech in that it prohibits the government from instituting laws that can restrict expression of an idea simply because it offends

Over the course of American history, many have taken the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and created wonderful things out of it. Alice Paul is an excellent example: she utilized her right to free speech and press to promote the equality of women and earned them the right to vote, in the midst of World War I. However, many take it the other way and create hate speeches where they tear down one particular group or individual or idea with their crude and blunt remarks. Yet, they are protected by the freedom of speech and the government cannot interfere with their actions, causing many to argue the First Amendment Right cannot be extended to anyone making hurtful remarks. Hate speeches need to be protected by the freedom of speech, as shown in legal documentation, moral issues, and the benefits it creates.

“At what point do we take personal attacks, and permit those, as opposed to -- I fully accept you’re entitled, in some circumstances, to speak about any political issue you want. But where is the line between doing that, and creating hardship for an individual?” –Justice Sonia Sotomayor. In the case of Snyder V. Phelps, Two very passionate sides debated just that. The Snyder family accused Phelps, or Westboro, of the tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, after Westboro picketed Phelps’ son’s funeral. Westboro disputed this, claiming their protests were protected under The First Amendment.

The founders of the United States government tried to protect our liberty by assuring a free press, to gather and publish information without being under control or power of another, in the First Amendment to the Constitution. We are not very protected by this guarantee, so we concern ourselves on account of special interest groups that are fighting to change the freedom of expression, the right to freely represent individual thoughts, feeling and views, in order to protect their families as well as others. These groups, religious or otherwise, believe that publishing unorthodox material is an abuse of free expression under the First Amendment. As we know, the Supreme Court plays an important role in the subject of free speech and

In “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill applies his philosophical system of utilitarianism to the government and argues that a government's primary goal should be protecting its citizens' individual liberty. Mill also argues that the only time coercion is acceptable is when a person’s behavior harms individuals (Mill, 617). Otherwise, society should treat diversity with complete respect Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are three things that each American is entitled to. In the United States Constitution, the first ten amendments are the Bill of Rights, one of them being freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is defined as the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without the interference of government retaliation, censorship, or societal sanction. In this paper, I argue that every citizen is entitled to freedom of speech where there are limitations with the help of The Harm Principle.

Last week, students who attend UW made headlines for creating a violent video beheading a cop to promote their clothing line. The argument is not about director Eneale Pickett’s ideology; it is whether or not he had a right—free speech—to do so.