Freedom Of Speech By Ann Griffin

that student or teachers may not use schools as a platform to exercise free speech and in the case

The following cases are utilized: Pickering v. Board of Education, Mt. Healthy City School District v. Doyle, Connick v. Myers, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeir, and Garcetti v. Ceballos. The case, Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court acknowledged teachers have the right to voice personal views as they relate to issues of public concern (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014). More specifically, “The Pickering case is one of the most influential court cases concerned with the balancing of teacher’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression against the state’s interest in promoting efficient schools” (DeMitchell & DeMitchell, 1990, p 385). If a teachers voices personal views that are damaging to coworkers, school procedures, ones’ occupational performance, and does not directly relate to public concerns there will be grounds for disciplinary actions (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014). This constitutional rights stands both inside and outside of the classroom, as educators can utilize various methods of communication, such as social media, written artifacts, visual relics, and expressive language. In the case, Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier, a teacher’s personal opinion can be expressed within the contours of a classroom when applicable to pedagogical reasons. More specifically, “Reasoning that the teachers was speaking for the school, the court concluded that teachers are not entitled to express views in the classroom that are counter to the adopted curriculum” (Cambron-McCabe, McCathy & Eckes, 2014, p. 242). If the topic discussed within the classroom is controversial in nature it must be censored, thus deeming appropriate to a youthful audience. In conclusion, it is imperative for educators to ‘think before they speak,’ as their actions can have detrimental impacts on key stakeholders as well as their

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.

Citizens in America are born with a various amount of rights. One of these rights include the freedom of speech and expression. However, school administrators have the ability to restrict a student’s expression. The Supreme Court Cases ‘Bethel School District v. Fraser’ and ‘Frederick V. Morse’ gave schools the right for the administrators to discipline children when they see fit. Students should be able to express themselves in any way without fearing that their school administrators will discipline

Everyone in America should be guaranteed the freedom of speech granted by The Constitution. In 1988, the court ruled in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier that schools \could limit freedom of speech in school if they had “educational concerns” (Jacobs). The problem is that “educational concerns” is too vague and school districts are able to use this as a loophole to get away with removing articles that do not need to be removed. Often, the concern is based on perception and image more than anything else. Angela Riley’s article “20 years later: Teachers reflect on Supreme Court’s Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ruling” quotes Frank LoMonte, executive director of

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

In his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.

Freedom of Expression is a right that all Americans can joy on a daily basis, now imagine if it were a controlled right? That doesn’t make it a right, more so something that we can use when the government says so. In November of 1968, 4 students organized a silent protest against the US policies in Vietnam, which ended with suspension from their local schools. The issue was brought up in court, which led to split consensus. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court was that the expression of speech couldn’t be prohibited unless it was a disruption and harmed the rights of others. The dissent opinion stated that if freedom of speech was without a limit to an extent, who says it could lead to school being a platform for the exercise of free speech instead of education. The argument came to the conclusion of defining the rights and freedom of speech for children in school. I agree with the majority opinion, seeing the freedom of expression shouldn’t be controlled and such.

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?]

Everyone is born free in this world and those are only the situations in which they are born, that make one slave or the ruler. In spite of social status and the economic standing of a being everyone wants and should be allowed to express their views, feelings and ideas. It is in nature of humans to experience the wonders of the world and to have the urge to observe and think about the wonders and express the ideas in a certain ways. Another thing that is also certain about the nature of the people that different people look at the same thing in different ways. American constitution is the one that respects the people and about the views and ideas of the people and their right to live and express their ideas freely. The constitution that was made by our fathers not only discusses the issues that are pertaining on collective level, but also, about the common issues and concerns of the people and one of them is freedom of speech. It is also the right of every free person in this world to have freedom of speech and to have his own personal standing. Constitution of United States also considers the right of the people to play their part and have their own view about everything that is happening around them and gives them the right to express them. This paper is also focused on the issue of freedom of speech, but, is targeted to how this right is being guaranteed and exercised at workplaces.

Depending on who you are and what you're viewpoints are this case is very controversial, That being said, it's a perfect case to look into. A student by the name of Matthew N. Fraser was suspended from school for three days. This was because he delivered a “provocative or obscene” speech to his fellow classmates. The student saw this as a issue or a violation of his right to freedom of speech. He was speaking at a public assembly when his peers and teachers saw that his words were indecent and unnecessary. So he decided to take this to the supreme court and when this happens the Court had ruled that this was not in violation of his rights so he was suspended for three days. Yes he did take this case to the Court but he was not able to win

Freedom of speech is a right that is meant to be interpreted according to how it is written in the constitution. Susan Jacoby makes a valid argument that the first amendment should be interpreted strictly on how it is written despite the vulgar that content that may be displayed. The author even goes as far as to saying pornography, content the author highly disapproves, is a valid point that applies under the first amendment. Moreover, the first amendment should be upheld at all costs despite the content that may be presented. The first amendment should be strictly interpreted, furthermore, federal courts should thoroughly evaluate truly controversial topics that may arise in the future.

I was part of the rebuttal for the Negative Team. My part of the argument was to rebut the Affirmative Team’s point that the First Amendment rendered the school rule unconstitutional. However, I argued that the school rule was not unconstitutional, as it had not broken any part of the First Amendment by only asking the students to be quiet while the anthem played. Additionally, I turned the argument on them during the rebuttal, by proving why Philip was being a disturbance, and the First Amendment’s freedom of speech could not protect him, as freedom of speech is defined as the legal right to express one’s opinion freely. The three main points introduced by the other team included that Narwin was unjust and biased, Philip has the right to freedom

Ruling in favor of Marisa LeGraga is fair and just because it would mean the court stands firm for creative expression and whatever the human creative impulse produces. Artists should not have to be restrained and should be able to produce photographs for expressive purposes. If the court were to diminish the commitment of freedom of expression, it would rob society of each persons uniqueness, ideas, and voice. Freedom of expression is a basic liberty and vital for an open society as a whole. A free society is more powerful than a closed

English philosopher, John Stuart Mill believed that every man has a right to think what he feels and say what he thinks, even if it is different than what others believe to be true. One of the most complex things in establishing a government is deciding how much freedom the citizens in a society should have. Throughout history, many different types of governments have been formed ranging from North Korea’s dictatorships to the United States democratic government. In societies that have democratic governments such as the United States and many other Western European countries, the citizens say what they think. In addition, these citizens have a high degree of freedom of thought. Although these are both very important to have in a democratic society because the rights allow people to express themselves for who you truly are, there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Freedom of speech is a public matter and freedom of thought is a private matter. John Stuart Mill writes on the importance of freedom of speech and freedom of thought in his book On Liberty. .