Freedom Of Speech Case Study

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

Over time the Supreme Court has decided that certain aspects of freedom of speech are more important than others. For example, if someone used their First Amendment rights to lie about things they knew were false, threatened to commit a crime, insult another person, or used overly explicit content, the courts have moral grounds to prosecute those persons. It makes sense that if someone’s freedom of speech lessened another person’s right to freedom of religion or freedom of opinion by instilling fear, that is an unfair use of the First Amendment. These parameters, although not specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights are very important to protect everyone’s right to feel safe believing the things that they do.

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.

So the need for more drastic, shock and awe type actions from people desiring to be heard on any particular matter has been brought to the forefront. This is where the Bill of Rights has drastically come into play. At this point the Supreme Court has to protect the freedoms without stripping Americans of their rights entirely but it also has to protect Americans from those who wish to do harm to others under the protection of freedom of speech or expression. Not only does the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech but also freedom of expression which is as equally controversial. By examining the First Amendment and the protections and exclusions it has provided over the years through three highly controversial cases, it will allow the reader some insight into the difficulties surrounding the protection of free speech. The cases that are to be examined are Snyder v. Phelps, Morse v. Frederick and Texas v. Johnson. All of these cases present a different freedom of speech or expression issue that was brought to the Supreme Court and therefore, set a standard for future rulings regarding that particular issue.

The ruling of Tinker. V. Des Moines is a good example of how well the Supreme Court used to highly value First Amendment rights. In the early Supreme Court case, which happened in the 1960s, seven out of nine justices, the vast majority of the Supreme Court (Gold), voted in the students’ favor. This fits in with other early Supreme Court rulings, such as the 1940 court ruling in Thornhill v. Alabama where they stated that First Amendment rights applied to picketers as long as they did not cause property destruction or harm others (Gold), or the ruling in West Virginia v. Barnette later in the 1940s in which the court stated that “students also had a right to express themselves symbolically” (Gold). Early U.S. Supreme Court opinions supported Americans’ right to symbolic speech as long as it did not cause a “clear and present danger” to others (Gold), and the fact that the aforementioned early rulings were in favor of this right supports this. How often the Supreme Court voted in favor of the First Amendment in the era Tinker v. Des Moines took place shows that they used to highly value First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment did not protect speech was given strength orders but however it was not following directions, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their stream of language production will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime.

The Supreme Court later deemed the syndicalism law to be unconstitutional and “overly broad” due to the fact that they could not make the distinction between whether it would encourage lawless actions or not. The court came up with something called the brandenburg test which ultimately asked questions such as intent, whether it was going to happen, and the likelihood of occurrence.

Schenck vs U.S was one case of 1919 in which protection through the freedom of speech clause was argued. Charles Schenck was caught mailing circulars to military members who had been drafted during World War 1, and expressing ideas to begin a petition to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck v. United States(n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 10, 2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47 claims “Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment.” The United States was unanimous in charging Schenck as guilty and claimed the first amendment was incapable of protecting him in such a situation. There were no dissenting justices in this case and the vote went 9-0.

As the years went by, different cases led to different tests and resolutions that decided where speech is not protected by the First Amendment. In 1919 the case Schenck v. United States led to the creation of the Clear and Present Danger Test, in this case Schenck, an anti-war socialist, was convicted for distributing pamphlets against the draft, claiming that it was unconstitutional because it was involuntary servitude and that that was banned under the Thirteenth Amendment. This is a particular difficult case to see because one can object that for him is not about supporting Germany, but giving the people the right to decide what to do, and that he is only exercising his right to freedom of speech. But Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that this freedom is not absolute, especially in war time, Holmes argued that his action will create a chaos that will put people in danger, he makes the example of screaming "fire" in a movie theater he said "the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent". The reasons the Court has to pass this test are more than reasonable, one of the duties of the government is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its citizens and if we weight the

In Gitlow v. New York, the petitioner was charged with criminal anarchy for advocating a socialist reform in the United States. In 1919, he had published a socialist manifesto and was preparing a mass distribution throughout New York City. The Court held that the State’s statute fell within ordinary scrutiny, and a reasonable means of exercising the police powers of the State. Justice Sanford held that a state has the power to prevent disturbing the peace and restrict speech that has the potential to incite violence, even though there may be no immediate threat of such action. Gitlow set the precedent for the “Bad Tendency” test, where freedom of speech and press does not give an individual the unmitigated right to any speech or publication without being held responsible for the results.

For years, there is a long going debate whether or not the Freedom of Speech is limited or not. However, thanks to the court case of Gitlow v. New York (1925) reminding us on what the importance of Freedom of Speech and Expression leading to the effectiveness of the 14th amendment does for us, do we have the basis to check on how the US is doing with the civil liberties after this instance that our founding fathers and framers have given to us in the first place.

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

As was established in Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002), the government cannot impose restrictions upon the First Amendment simply because of its content. This decision was then strengthened greatly by the Supreme Court in the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert which made the determination that laws which restrict speech “based on its communicative content… are presumptively

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,

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