Impact Of Heffron And Our Ordinance Place Restrictions On Where Individuals

Most obviously there is a line between free speech and discrimination, free speech and bullying, free speech and defamation, free speech and religious intolerance ect. No matter the law or the right there is always certain restriction that are imposed to keep tolerance exercising in a conflicted society

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

Although we, as citizens of this country, are guaranteed freedom of speech and press by the first amendment, we are encouraged to “watch what we say”. In order to avoid unnecessary violence and to keep people from being offended, it is recommended the certain things be censored. While many may look at this censorship as a well-needed percussion it can reversely be seen as going against one's first amendment rights, in itself causing controversy.

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.

Similarly, Carpenter et al.'s overall argument is a logos appeal that reads "A cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets." (4) This statement appeals to the reader's sense of logic and reason and is effective because it is a logical appeal that cannot be refuted.

Enactment and enforcement of laws that punish people for begging or panhandling in order to move poor or homeless persons out of a city or downtown area.

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.

Freedom of speech is a glorious thing and a privileges of living in the United States of America is being able to express one’s opinion. Segments of society are making an effort to stifle people’s opinions to do what is politically correct. Can people’s ideas of protection be too extreme? In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that there is a negative outcome when rules are given to stop people from being offended, and this statement is supported from real life examples, analogies, and reliable sources.

Other ordinances that really upset me are the ones that prohibit loitering. Loitering is defined as hanging around an area for no apparent reason. I was harassed several times for loitering while homeless. Being forced to move along adds to the exhaustion homeless people already deal with. The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty gives another example, this one pertains to

Mrs. Fang will likely base her request for injunction on the following grounds: (1) that the ordinance violated her Fourth Amendment rights to be free from search and seizure; (2) that the ordinance violates her rights to Due

This Court’s opinion in Hodgkiss provides insight into the alternative channels analysis. In Hodgkiss, the ordinance forbade all attachments of notices, posters, and signs to public structures. State v. Hodgkiss, 132 N.H. 376, 384 (1989). This Court found the ordinance was not overbroad because the government had a significant interest in remedying the visual pollution

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance, which requires a permit for parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest (53).

Free speech should not be restricted.  The first amendment gives the right for anyone to say whatever he or she wants, whenever they want and guarantees us the privilege to speak our minds without limitations.   Our right to free speech is one thing that sets the United States apart from any other country.  Since September 11, 2001 all

It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such while and colored persons are effectuallu separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entramce from the street is provided for each compartment.

The Constitution guarantees us the right to Freedom of Speech. Nowhere in the First Amendment does it state that we have the right to freedom of speech as long as everyone agrees with us and likes what we say. Quite the contrary, it states that “Congress shall pass no laws abridging our right to freedom of speech.” Censorship does exactly that, severs away our right to freedom of speech. Censorship is Government telling us what we are to approve of and disapprove of. It is Government abridging our right to freedom of speech.