Plagiarism: The Right Of Free Speech In America

After reading the transcript of the speech, “The Spirit of Liberty”, given by federal judge for more than 50 years, Learned Hand, who served most of the time on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, my idea of what it means to be an American was slightly shifted. The statement made by Hand which really caught my attention was, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes.” I agree with Hand in the sense that the constitution can only serve purpose to our country if we, as Americans, learn to be truly accepting.

This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a

Many people come to the United States looking for freedom and liberty and where their essential rights are protected under the Constitution. However, freedom should not be taken for granted as for every rule there may be limits. The First Amendment of the United States’ Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Corwin 48). In other words, the First Amendment granted freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly, and petition. The First Amendment is clear enough for anyone to comprehend and process easily; however, people sometimes misunderstand their rights by doing what their First Amendment right does not protect, especially when it comes to freedom of speech. Seven of the most important law cases in the United States’ history are what shaped the American’s society and allowed people to hopefully know and recognize their limits and restrictions when it comes to their speech whether it was a literal speech or a symbolic speech.

According to the Bill of Rights, we are afforded the freedom of speech through the first amendment. But this awarding of freedom is only allowed if it goes along with what the general population deems “normal”. During the middle part of the 1900’s many books were banned on political, religious, and moral views. While our society has changed these issues are still prevalent in today’s public views and opinions of author’s work. These books are not “normal” and that is why they play an unprecedented part in literature today. Books written in this era had a different political, religious, and moral atmosphere than those written in the modern day; but these same issues arise in today’s society.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"(Cornell University Law School.) The First Amendment of the constitution talks about the religious liberties given to the citizens of the United States. It protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference and enforces the “separation of church and state” (Cornell University Law School.) The free exercise clause is another important clause that prohibits the government from interfering with a person’s practice of their religion. There are associations created just for this protection of religious rights. The Christian Law Association was made for many of the instances involving people “experiencing difficulty in practicing their religious faith because of governmental regulation, intrusion, or prohibition in one form or another” (Christianlaw.org) The basis of this research focus’ specifically on the question of the balance between religious rights and the other constitutionally given rights. This paper will go over and define the right’s given and will examine some of the court cases and issues involving the question and balance of religious rights and liberties.

Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment. It’s likely the most well-known part of the United States Constitution, and was considered by the founders of our country to be one of the most important pieces of a free society. While in years prior it has generally been agreed upon that free speech - especially political speech - is vital to democracy, today there are some people singing a different tune. There are those who believe that certain offensive speech (or in some cases any and all offensive speech) should be prohibited by law. This idea of restricting offensive verbal content is known generally as ‘political correctness’ and will be referred to as such here. The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no

The freedom of speech protected under the Frist Constitution in addition to other beloved values has often struggled in the world with its concept of what’s exactly determined as free speech and what’s not. In other words what’s free speech meaning that a person can state his or her personal opinion as opposed to Hate speech which is meant to offend threatens and insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. It seems that in some circumstances the law has to decide to protect some and not others. Take the case Miller vs Davis (2015) as an example of the law deciding which person to protect. A woman named Miller Davis a country clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky refused to issuance marriage license to same sex couples. She claims to as, doing so would go against her religion and would continue to not give out licenses as she was protected under the Frist Constitution. Davis said in a Kelly File Interview,” Same sex unions destroy the sanctity of marriage”. To some this may have been seen as someone just practicing their right but denying someone their right to marriage based on sexual orientation is a hate crime. That was the difference that made the couple Carmen and Shannon Wampler-Collins and three other anonymous couples file a lawsuit against Davis. The lawsuit claimed that Davis was breaking the law by not giving all couples including same sex couples a license for marriage. Admittedly that’s where this

From a societal perspective, plagiarism is seen as an anticipated but unfortunate matter of fact, somewhat like a social faux pas (Martin, 1994). If someone in a high level position were to be revealed for plagiarism, certainly there would be embarrassment and some stigma associated with such knowledge (Green, 2002) but when considered against all possible offenses, likely downplayed as minor. Sadly, these incidents are happening younger and younger (Lahey,

Freedom of speech is a right in the first amendment that is allowed to every person. No matter the age, gender, or race every person has a different way of thinking, and it's a right for them to be able to express it. Freedom of speech means that every person has the right to express their opinion without having to worry about society or the law threatening them.We are all different due that we are individuals that think, express and process in a variety of ways.If people are comfortable enough with each other thoughts why do people despise when we express them publicly, even when an opinion is never right or wrong.What we can say is that today's society has changed what freedom of speech means.We have changed the way we express our thoughts

The First Amendment say’s “Congress can make no law not allowing freedom of speech to be used by the people”. Now I will give u some historical background. The First Amendment without a doubt was an action against the silence of free speech that existed in The English society. Until 1694, there was a complicated system of licensing in England, and no public was allowed without a government license. Blackstone, with his famous commentaries in law, said that “the liberty of the press say’s laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal stuff when published... To subject the press to the power of a license . . . is to subject all of the freedom of sentiment to the power of one man, and make him the

Citizens of the United States are privileged to the freedom of speech under the First Amendment, but the constitutional limits of the freedom of speech have been questioned on multiple occasions. Citizens of the United States have called upon the Supreme Court numerous times to interpret the meaning of the First Amendment, and the court has censored some forms of speech such as obscene speech --which has been prohibited--and indecent or pornographic speech--which has been regulated (Barrett, 1999). Public and private properties, institutions, and businesses started censoring and placing limitations on hate speech in 1980 (Roleff, p.64). Hate speech is defined as speech that attacks a person or a group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation (Barrett, 1999). “ In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group” (Barnes and Ephross, 1994). Several debates have lingered over if certain restrictions on hate speech violate the First Amendment (Simmons, 2012). Hate speech should be regulated and censored by the federal government; however, these regulations and policies will limit an individual 's freedom of speech.

Making my paper ethical to everyone was a very important part of my writing. It was most important to make sure all of my quotes were cited correctly. Going along with that, it was important to not twist the authors words. It is wrong to try to take credit for someone else’s work. The audience to my writing could be so many different people so the language I use is a big deal. Certain words have different meanings and can be offensive if used incorrectly. In order to keep the papers ethical, it is important to choose every word with care.

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also

Nowadays journalists have the responsibility to report facts as accurately, objectively, and disinterestedly as is humanly possible. ‘’The, honest, self-disciplined, well-trained reporter seeks to be a propagandist for nothing but the truth’’ (Casey, 1944b).

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