Speech On Freedom Of Speech

In this text, the case hinges on whether the students created a disturbance. There was a fear that they might create one, but since they never did, the court held that their self-expression was protected.

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.

Court Decision(s): The Court ruled in favor of the students. In accordance with the First Amendment, their actions were constitutional. It was not disruptive, nor did it invade other’s rights. However, this did not give unlimited freedom of speech to the students. As long as they continued the “peaceful” protesting without causing distractions, they could continue.

The following day, the third student protester followed suit and ended up suspended. The students’ parents sued the school district based on violation of the students’ right of expression. The parents also sought to have the disciplinary action upheld.

United States is a country that has stated that citizens’ have the right to stand up for what you believe in as long as it does not break the law. That was what the protesters were doing. The protestors wanted someone as their president at Gallaudet University that had an understanding of the student’s needs. The protestors moved the busses, so no one could in because this was their way to try express how they felt and to get their point across. It was the right of the protester to protest what they believed in a way they could get their point across to everyone. No laws were broken; moreover, it got the attention needed to help solve the issue of not having a deaf president. The students wanted someone culturally similar to them. The board telling the students that the running president that could hear was more qualified made it come off as if they felt that a person who is deaf could not reach the same standards of someone that can hear. It expressed a cultural difference in a society that said a person that is deaf cannot be as successful as a person that is hearing because of their different ways of communication. This caused people of the deaf community to practice their rights for freedom of protest and fight for a president that is

For centuries Universities have been a place to freely voice your opinion and debate with others. These institutions have been relatively safe harbors for debating social issues and exercising the individual's civil rights. However, current students seem to be the exact opposite, and the constitutional principle of free speech seems under siege. “Colleges and universities in the United States have retreated from strong historical support for free speech, including the dis-invitation of speakers, promulgation of speech codes that prohibit what is deemed "offensive speech," and students protesting the participation of politically unpopular speakers on campus” (Eliott)

An online petition signed by 2,000 observed that UCI administration did little to protect the students from the hateful comments and death threats directed toward them on our school’s official Facebook page. Instead of protecting and supporting vulnerable students, the school administration issued a statement denouncing the six students that supported the resolution. They asserted that the ban was somehow the work of a fringe group of students, not part of a student-elected body of government with the power to set such policies in place. The school chancellor, Howard Gillman, added fire to the flame, claiming that “it was outrageous and indefensible that they would question the appropriateness of displaying the American flag on this great campus”. Instead of supporting the students’ exercising their freedom of speech, the official campus response was criticize the students who were already being put under attack by the public at

In wearing armbands, the petitioners were quiet and passive. (pg. 1) John, Christopher, and Mary Beth weren’t being disruptive and chaotic. If the students weren’t being rude or disruptive, then the students shouldn’t have been in trouble at all. So why would the students of Des Moines, Iowa be suspended? John, Christopher, and Mary Beth were just expressing themselves in an appropriate manner.

Tinker, 393 U.S. at 511. Thus, discomfort, hurt feelings, embarrassment, or disapproval of an unpopular viewpoint do not justify a school’s restriction of silent, passive expressions of student speech. Id. See Emmett, 92 F. Supp. 2d at 1090 (holding that a student cannot be suspended for non-school sponsored website featuring mock obituaries on the basis of fear of disturbance); and Tinker 363 U.S. at 512 (finding that a school cannot restrict students’ free speech to avoid discomfort and unpleasantness of an unpopular viewpoint when the school suspended students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War); and J.C., 711 F. Supp. 2d at 1107 (finding that a school cannot suspend a student over a YouTube video because of a teenager’s hurt feelings, rather it must be something more than “ordinary personality conflicts”); and Burge, 92 F. Supp. 3d at 1060 (holding that a teacher’s upset or angry feelings about a student’s comments on Facebook, such as “she should be shot,” was insufficient for a substantial disruption). Any words spoken in class, the lunchroom, or on campus that deviate from the majority can cause a disturbance, but the Constitution asserts it is imperative that students’ take the risk of voicing unpopular opinions.

In, On the Repression of Free Expression, Mike Bloomberg argues that freedom of speech is needed on campuses. Bloomberg also believes it is not right to take away the privilege of learning from students, just because of other individual students. “we cannot others the right and privileges that we demand for ourselves” (Bloomberg.104). They cannot have campus wide trigger warnings over one individual student. Condensing what students could learn, is not helping their education. Professors should be allowed to teach and discuss the topics they have to without fear. “Ideas can be dangerous” (Bloomberg.105). Not everyone’s opinion will be one to agree with, nor everything a person has to say, but people have to adjust to the real world where everything is not sugar

A group of students had gathered in Des Moines to celebrate the truce of the Vietnam War. The children had chosen to wear black armbands and fast as well. However, the principals of the schools in Des Moines created a policy which stated that if the bands were not removed by the student, that student would then be suspended. After a few kids were sent home by the administration, the students had ended up suing the school district for not allowing them to express their “voices”. The act of the school administration had violated the First Amendment, which states that Congress may not prohibit “free speech”.

Randolph called for a demonstration on the campus of USD in attempt to “stamp out Stalinist oppression.” In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the court established a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.” During the demonstration, which was attended by dozens of students, Randolph called for resistance against University policies. In his confession to Vermillion Police, Randolph admitted that his speech was intended to “stir up” fellow students. Although Randolph did not personally destroy campus property or intend for the vandalism occur, nevertheless, his speech incited others to do so.

18 student groups from across the political spectrum asked the Dean to reverse the ruling. (Freeman, Jo) But when they met with the dean they found out that the ruling was not put in place from him and that it came from someone higher up on the board at Berkeley. So with that student groups defied the policy by setting up their tables as before, and also in front of the administration building facing Sproul Plaza, where they had never been before. (Freeman, Jo) While the tables were being set up student activists led a rally and a march against the new rules of protesting on campus. The students marching and five tables were ordered to the dean’s office and with that, 400 Students signed the petition of complicity and filled the halls of the administration building demanding that they too be disciplined. So they were indefinitely suspended. (Freeman, Jo)

The conflict between the administration and the students began with the banning of the designated “free speech” area on campus. Students began to move closer to the heart of campus in protest, setting up tables for organizations like FSM (the Free Speech Movement) in Sproul Plaza. These actions resulted in the “indefinite suspensions” of Mario Savio and seven other students. In an incident in which student protesters surrounded a police car and gave speeches atop it, the President of the university, Clark Kerr, began negotiations with Savio and the students. However, Kerr shot down the FSM’s proposal for a committee, and tensions between the FSM and the administration increased over the next month.

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