North Carolina State University's Speech Policy Case Study

1. Yes, I believe the Bible club has legitimate grounds to file suit for use of school facilities. Principal Gayle Dixon’s decision to deny the club use is based on her interpretation of the club’s charter to be discriminatory and not necessarily the law’s or districts.

Despite their opinions, free speech was a great way in this situation for students to rally together and publically inform the rest of campus of their beliefs. In the school newspaper, The Daily Emerald, CJ Ciaramelle wrote “About 300 students from across the campus community — student unions, Greek Life, the ASUO, the Survival Center, the Women’s Center — showed up at the meeting to protest the Forum” (1). Although the majority of people protested against the forum the right to free speech, it is important because it allows students to make decisions on their own and invite students to do the same.

The University decide who can write what where does negatively impact the first amendment right of students. However, I also believe that the way they showed their support for Trump can be found as offensive to some. In this case, more political correctness may have limited the negative light shined on this situation.

A student at Westside High School requested to form a Christian Club that would meet after school. The club would be granted the same privileges as the other student groups at the school, but they did not have a faculty sponsor. Her request was denied by the principal stating that the club would violate the Establishment Clause and the School Board policy requiring a faculty member to sponsor the club. Mergens took her concerns to the School Board. The School Board upheld the principal’s decision. Mergens filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education of Westside Community Schools, for denying the request for a Christian

The right to freedom of expression of ones religion is at stake in this case. Mrs. Williams has a right to express her religion freely. However, based upon the Establishment Clause which prohibits any law “respecting the establishment of religion”, she does not have the right to force others to conform to her way of thinking. At the same time, students and community members have a right to express their religion, too. They also have a right not to have another person’s religion forced on them. So there is only one individual right at stake here, but it is not possible to respect this right of behalf of all the claimants. While the majority of the community, the school board, and some students will feel that it is Mrs. Williams’ right to keep the bulletin board posted, some community members, students, and ACLU feel it is their right not to keep it posted.

We felt that there is a certain amount of respect that everyone deserves and the WBC is crossing this line and stripping people of this respect. As a result, there should be laws created to limit the amount of emotional stress that this group can put onto the people they encounter. One way this can be done is by not allowing the church to protest at certain events such as the funerals of deceased military members. Although the WBC has the right and is protected by the first amendment, allowing them to express their freedom of speech, they are using this to their advantage and are exploiting others. I personally believe that the creators of this amendment had no intention for it to be used to protect people who act like the members of the WBC. I do agree that the WBC have the right to their freedom of speech and protest, however, they are in some ways, impeding and striping the rights and freedoms of the people they encounter and the young members of the church who shout and hold signs when they have yet to understand the meaning of

Notwithstanding Chris Cantwell’s speech, “Free Speech Week” must be permitted to proceed as UC Berkeley, a government institution, demonstrates a commitment to the First Amendment. While allowing this event may be considered by many displeasing, it is in line with both the campus’s designation as a limited public forum, and the ruling from Supreme Court case Lamb’s Chapel

Universities that have been trying to quash free speech have encountered some court reversals of their attempts. But campus leftists have not given up. The newest university gambit to limit speech mirrors the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines concerning sexual harassment in the workplace, (creating a hostile environment) or they attempt to base their speech code on the "fighting words" doctrine enunciated by the Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Despite adopting this test, the Supreme Court has been quick to disregard the test and lower the wall separating issues of state and faith as long as educational barriers such as the banishment of school prayer remained untouched. This quick change was evident in the 1981 ruling by the court that a law that prohibited the use of public school properties and campuses for religious purposes unconstitutional was deemed itself unconstitutional. This slow reduction of the separating wall was evident in many more cases through the Supreme Court's following history; cases such as deeming acts of the University of Virginia unconstitutional, who violated the free speech of a fundamentalist Christian group by not funding their magazine. Other following cases slowly deemed the funding of Christian organizations and schools more acceptable as Christian books and financial aid to said students, was deemed constitutionally sound if the aid went to the school, not to the students. These establishment issues not only of education but on the use of religious displays and depictions in

In the article “Speech Codes: Alive and Well at Colleges” by Harvey A. Silverglate and Greg Lukianoff the authors talk about how speech codes are still used in universities but not called speech codes. Silverglate goes on to speak how speech is restricted by way of creating “speech zones” and policies that are “artfully written” to conceal their intentions to limit public speaking. I found myself asking why we need to defend ourselves from expressing our viewpoints even if they are constitutionally protected by the first amendment.

No matter what people do, everybody will have their own opinions on things and will have their ways of how they want to communicate it to other people. The different communications involve politics, problems, religion, talking over the phone, etc. In You’ve Been Warned: Speech Under Fire, it says, “A majority of college students believe universities should restrict which kinds of expression are allowed on campuses”(Robby Soave). There is a lot of talk that happens on college campus’ that offend people and even students believe that we should be limited on the things that they say. Another issue that has occurred with college campus freedom of speech is said by Catherine Rampell when a college professor was speaking of her opinions politically and a student had recorded her in the classroom. That student had posted it on the internet where it had gone viral and even got onto Fox News where they referred to the words she told the students to be an assault. This professor received threats and riots to get her fired which required her to flee her state for safety. When she was teaching her class and claiming her opinions it was obvious that she was a liberal so according to the Knight Foundation Survey, it claims that, “colleges should be able to restrict campus speech that expresses ‘political views that are upsetting or

Facts: The university of Virginia (UVA) established a fund called “Student Activities Fund” (SAF) in order to support students extracurricular activities that “related to the University's educational purpose” (Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va. 515 U.S. 819). Any student group that was granted a “Contracted Independent Organization" (CIO) status by UVA can apply for funds from SAF to pay the printing bill of its publication from outside contractor, as long as the student group was not engaged in religious activities. Petitioner Ronald Rosenberger and other students founded Wide Awake Productions (WAP) and published its newspaper “Wide Awake”. After WAP was given CIO status, it filed an application requesting SAF to cover the printing cost of “Wide Awake”. UVA denied WAP’s request because they deemed its newspaper had a Christian viewpoint. WAP then sued the university, alleging that the university’s refusal to fund them violated their free speech rights.

As a result, many members of the minority student body protested to the university that the act was sexist and racist. Consequently, Sigma Chi’s activities were restricted and sanctioned. However, the Sigma Chi Fraternity sued George Mason University for unlawful punishment which was a violation of Sigma Chi’s free speech rights because it is unlawful to punish speech simply because it offended someone. Agreeing with the fraternity, the court dismissed the punishment; after all, George Mason University did not have a hate speech code to base their decision on. This case set a criterion for universities, that in order to regulate hate speech, a code cannot punish protected speech, —including hate speech—must be very definite about what is prohibited or punishable, and cannot base punishment on content of

Lyndon Johnson was convinced that liberal nationalism and the power of the federal government could transform society. His faith grew out of his youthful experiences with poverty in Texas, his political apprenticeship during the New Deal, and his desire to surpass Roosevelt's legacy. When he took office in November 1963, after John F. Kennedy's death, Johnson inherited the early initiatives to address poverty that the Kennedy administration had under consideration. With characteristic enthusiasm and expansiveness, Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964 and pushed legislation through Congress to establish the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO).In this speech, the purpose Lyndon B. Johnson outlines his vision and goals for "The Great

SPECIFIC PURPOSE: By the end of my speech, my audience will know the history of Walt Disney, his invention of Disney World, and how his invention has impacted people.