Free Speech : Brandeis And The Freedom Of Speech

College is a time when most individuals are experiencing major changes and begin to explore new perspectives. The transition in becoming more independent, creating new insights and peer influence are key factors in changing the perspective of an individual. Students are faced with new ideas from their professors, family and fellow peers. Through that acquired knowledge many students decide that they either agree or disagree with the perspectives that they are taught. Allowing the right of ‘Free Speech’ on public college campuses has become an important issue that many public colleges are starting to address. In college students are capable of

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

Free speech is the fundamental right, almost assumed as a divine ordinance on humans. Preliminary development of free speech starts at universities. Though considered an integral part of academic institutions and student intellectual growth, in the recent past there is growing intolerance for free speech ‘opinions’ expressed through different mediums. This paper compares two texts, “Free speech is flunking out on college campuses” by Catherine Rampell, and “Restoring free speech on campus” by Geoffrey R. Stone and Will Creeley. This paper argues that any text, without provisioning a counter narrative for the core argument, is lacking in its sense of completeness and ability to pre-resolve reactionary dissent.

After reading the transcript of the speech, “The Spirit of Liberty”, given by federal judge for more than 50 years, Learned Hand, who served most of the time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, my idea of what it means to be an American was slightly shifted. The statement made by Hand which really caught my attention was, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes.” I agree with Hand in the sense that the constitution can only serve purpose to our country if we, as Americans, learn to be truly accepting.

On January 16, 1920 many Americans felt that their voices had finally been heard. Their hard fought war was over. They had finally sent John Barleycorn to the grave. They believed the United States could now escape poverty and families could prosper. On January 16, 1920 the 18th amendment went into effect. The 18th amendment was the prohibition of any intoxicating liquor. Many celebrated what they called the death of John Barleycorn, a fictional character representing alcohol. The future looked bright for America now that alcohol would not be there to destroy families. The outcome proved otherwise as it was unsuccessful and had a negative impact on society. To what extent did prohibition hurt society? There is much evidence that supports that prohibition was repression that led to rebellion and negatively affected society. The prohibition proved to increase crime and threaten American freedom. Abraham Lincoln once stated, “Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded.”

Free speech on college campuses has been a widely debated topic in recent years. Because of this, the opinions held on this subject vary. In the editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses”, the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune defends the idea of education and free speech. The Editorial Board states that students today are not receiving as useful of an education because of the barriers put on free speech. In addition, they argue that in not allowing students to feel uncomfortable, they are not receiving a true education. [A little more summary here would be helpful—how does the author support these claims?] The editorial, “Defending Free Speech on College Campuses,” introduces a valid logical argument on education through describing instances in which students experience uncomfortable learning situations, and the ways in which they were handled. [Hannah, your reasons here are about content, not about rhetoric—what rhetorical reasons is the argument strong?]

The nation's leftists, whether in academia or the news media tout themselves as advocates of free speech. Back in 1964, it was Mario Savio a campus leftist who led the Free Speech Movement at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, a movement that without question played a vital role in placing American universities center stage in the flow of political ideas no matter how controversial, unpatriotic and vulgar.

The years leading into the 1920's and the prohibition movement were marked with saloons, drunkenness, and a society of increasing alcohol consumption. America's changing social habits brought on the passage of the Eighteenth amendment in 1919, placing a nation-wide ban on intoxicating liquors. This amendment was to prevent the production, sale, and use of alcoholic beverages. As the new law was established, the problem of enforcing Americans to obey the law was a great task as bootleggers illegally continued to traffic alcohol. Throughout the temperance movement, numerous leaders came forth on both sides of the war against and for prohibition. The fight for prohibition and the reasoning behind it was not worth the

Whether it was demonstrating to the nation that a large number of citizens supported the banning of alcohol; the passage legislation that created precedence and demonstrated the possibility of passing an amendment outside of war; or, ironically, a war that made drinking seem unpatriotic; these all changed Americans’ attitudes towards Prohibition in some way. This was essential to the Prohibition cause because without these events, support for an amendment banning alcohol would not have been nearly as high, and Prohibition may never have been

According to the Bill of Rights, we are afforded the freedom of speech through the first amendment. But this awarding of freedom is only allowed if it goes along with what the general population deems “normal”. During the middle part of the 1900’s many books were banned on political, religious, and moral views. While our society has changed these issues are still prevalent in today’s public views and opinions of author’s work. These books are not “normal” and that is why they play an unprecedented part in literature today. Books written in this era had a different political, religious, and moral atmosphere than those written in the modern day; but these same issues arise in today’s society.

The Court, in affirming the judgment of lower courts, deferred to Congress but also redefined the standard to protect future free speech since the times implied more stringent restrictions on speech could follow. Had the Court struck down the ruling, Congress would not have the necessary power to limit speech, and future dangerous speech would go unabated since doing so would create the rule that Congress cannot limit free speech. Rather than create this rule, the Court created a new standard by which to measure the ability of Congress to curb free speech on a case-by-case basis. This new standard, which more broadly protects free speech, has evolved over time, as evident in Abrams, Brandenburg, and Holder. The ability to evolve over time and to apply to different cases in lower courts highlights Holmes’ idea that rights were established by society and balanced by the needs of the society, according to blah blah, and thus reflects an inherent legitimacy. Again, having this standard and the ability to choose to use it or not allows the Court to reflect the necessities of society, thereby aligning more closely to

“Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man 's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes.” Even though Abraham Lincoln lived about a half-century before Prohibition took effect in the 1920s, he described it quite well. The legislation essentially took alcohol, which had been a part of people’s lives since history of cultures were reported and made it illegal overnight. While Prohibition did see some positive effects like a lower consumption rate, other major issues arose that could have definitely been avoided. Legislators failed to take into account the fact that taking something away from the public will not stop them from finding loopholes and creative ways to conceal ways to consume alcohol. While the 18th Amendment may have seemed like a good idea on paper, its many underlying changes eventually led to a repeal and became known as a reflection of the United States during the 1920s.

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

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

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