Garcia Vs Google

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Freedom of speech gives people The right to free speech, which is one of the most precious rights an individual has as a citizen of the United States of America. This right gives people the opportunity to speak their mind and give their opinions of what they think should happen. These rights have been questioned and exercised throughout history and have produced extremely positive things in a lot of cases. The questioning of these rights are

Free speech is by far the most commonly recognized freedom in our everyday lives. The freedom of speech allows us to voice our own opinions without the severe repercussions of some countries. It allows us to say what we really feel and helps us learn how to communicate in true and meaningful ways. Along with this freedom, we must remember that there are limits to this freedom. While being arrested “you have the right to remain silent” and anything you say can be used against you in court. This freedom is not one to be taken for

Nevertheless, speech or vernacular that is threatening or violent towards other citizens-or adversely and negatively affects the freedoms of others- can be restricted and enjoys no protection from the Bill of Rights. In the subsequent weeks after the Charlie Hebdo and Curtis Culwell shootings, both the FBI and Parisian police aggressively targeted, banned, and censored anti-Islamic speech or discourse in an attempt to stem future violence. While these reactions may be well-intended, it is imperative to remember that even speech that profoundly insults our personal values or is hateful to our ideals warrants the same protection as other speech solely because freedom of expression is inseparable: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are

Again, it should be noted that by use of the word ‘promote', it is implicit that the material on which the promotion is based exists. Censoring intolerance, or forcibly punishing it by imprisonment, is not an effective tactic. Without the freedom to offend, we cannot recognise these social problems, nor fight them with any real conviction. Relating back to this line of debate is of course the overseas publication of the controversial Danish cartoons. Cultural tensions within the European Muslim communities have been building up for decades; the Danish Cartoon Armageddon of early this year has only proven if anything, that social tolerance cannot be won through silence or apathy. Rather, it can only be gained through the implementation of free speech. To claim however that the caricatures championed some great ‘in defence of free speech movement' is wrong; they were, in themselves, badly drawn, inarticulate, and obscenely unfunny. The Danish cartoons were deliberately provocative, and as such blur the reasonable confines of expression. To lampoon the free speech cause by using them to argue for censorship is ridiculous. One does not go around punching people in the face to test their commitment to non-violence; similarly, the cartoons should not be used to test the attendant dangers of absolute free

The most famous defamation case, which still sets precedent in today's cases, is New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is the leading case on the question of defamation liability for media defendants. The case, heard before the Supreme Court, declared that public officials and figures could not recover for an alleged defamation unless they can prove both that the statement was false, and was made with actual malice. This decision prevents the news media from reporting on false or slanderous stories. It protects the country's public icons seeing they are almost always in the spotlight. In addition to defamation hindering media, obscenity and pornography on the net have placed limitations on what some websites may provide in terms of content.

In 2007 the first amendment rights of a school kid named Joseph fredrick were allegedly violated in school for having a sign reading “ BONG HITS 4 JESUS”. His principal Morse confiscated the sign and suspended him for 5 days. Just because of that Fredrick took his case and kept on going up, and kept on having more trials and eventually reached the supreme court, and his case was accepted. And then the trial date set. After a lot of fighting and arguing, Frederick lost the case to Morse having fought hard against her. Fredrick lost because the Supreme court ruled that you

Phelps (2011) in regards to what kind of speech should be protected under the 1st Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. While it is understandable that people are entitled to the freedom of speech, even with a buffer zone enabled, but I found compelling is in the content and impact the case permitted in the aftermath. Freedom of speech? Or fighting words? The United States has reviewed similar cases such as Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988); the exception is the issue of the picket signs held by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, while protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier as a matter of public concern regarding whether or not to cause emotional distress to a grieving family as a matter of a debate, but an 8-1 ruling ensured that even hateful speech was protected. I find it hard to believe that there was little to nothing SCOTUS would list as a constituting a compromise for both sides and how the majority claimed that Snyder’s right to privacy was not infringed upon—with only Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting, claiming that “in order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims.” As such, the Supreme Court’s ruling on this case led to a vulnerability in similar civil liberties: what

Today one does not even have to wait for a movie to be released. Simply click the “ON” button on a remote and suddenly, thousands of news and television shows are available for one to enjoy. Muslims are also the target of prejudice in these news broadcasts and programs. One such television program released was a drama titled “24.” Issues and Controversies reports: “The show, which deals with a counterterrorism unit based in Los Angeles, featured a group of Muslim terrorist characters who were plotting to detonate nuclear weapons in the U.S. At the end of one episode, the terrorists successfully detonated a small bomb in a Los Angeles suburb, killing about 12,000 people” (“Race and Ethnicity in Entertainment”). This fictional show wrongly spreads the stereotypical image of Muslims and their clichéd image of the fundamentalists on 9/11. By adding the title and image of “Muslim” to the phrase “terrorist” the program wrongly advertised that potentially every Muslim could be a terrorist. This stereotypical image is similarly expressed in news broadcasts through the use of terrorism news. By increasingly using terrorism and Muslims in top

Further support for religious speech is found in the Supreme Court case of Curry v. School District of the City of Saginaw. In this case, a lawsuit was filed when a student was prevented from displaying a Christian message on a marketing project he was selling to classmates. Although his project met all of the requirements of the assignment, school personnel forced the student to remove the Christian message on the project. The courts ruled that the action taken by school officials restricted the student’s rights to free speech by violating his First Amendments speech rights (US Department of Justice,

Freedom of expression has multiple limitations. Some advantages of these limits include protecting people from slander, protecting the government from losing top secret information and, protecting citizens from false advertisement. Some disadvantages include a group or person could use defamation of character toward an individual, group, or business, but as long as they are not inciting crime or violence the government cannot convict them under the first amendment. This makes it difficult to carry out a conviction such as in McCoy v. Stewart. In this case McCoy was convicted for encouraging further gang crime but he requested an appeal, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that Mccoy’s actions didn’t fulfill all the requirements of the Brandenburg test, specifically the part including “imminent lawless action”. This is an example how difficult it may be bringing justice to criminals while following the many detailed steps and freedoms that must not be infringed upon. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of

The first amendment protects freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and other related rights. Interestingly, religious freedom is also one of the reasons for the founding of our country, as the ideological and religious freedom concept remains as strong today, as it was at the time of the founding of the United States. Individual rights are persons’ rights as these rights pertain to the goal of our national government to provide the same level of rights adequately to all its citizens. Human rights are universal, and these rights include any person not on basis of race, color, gender or disability not be denied. However, an individual’s human right is forthcoming by the government power. All perpetrators deemed to justice, as it is necessary, in part, by the U.S. government to protect citizens from any terror threats and/or acts. In the United States judicial system, the U.S. Supreme Court “have the task of interpreting civil liberties and civil rights, that is defining the rights of the

“Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It reinforces all other human rights, allowing society to develop and progress. The ability to express our opinion and speak freely is essential to bring about change in society.” Freedom of Speech grants you the right and privilege to speak your mind without facing any type of consequence . I strongly believe that censorship and the lack of free speech can and will cause a negative effect on our world.

The documentary that I chose to watch is a documentary called Bloody Cartoons. The documentary follows Karsten Kjaer around Denmark, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Qatar, Turkey and France. Kjaer is a Danish filmmaker who covers the uproar the representation of Mohammed in the Danish cartoons caused within Muslims around the world. The film infers the extraordinary commitment and values Muslims have towards their faith of Islam and its purpose was to show how certain freedoms of one culture can and did offend the values and beliefs of another. It does a good job of presenting both points of view of the topic of issue while effectively using Ethos, Pathos and Logos to aid in the persuasion of both sides. Interviews with

1. Discuss competition in the search industry. Which of the five competitive forces seem strongest? weakest? What is your assessment of overall industry attractiveness?