Summary Of Studies In The First Amendment, Playing Out On Campus

Amendment; this is the Amendment that is used as the basis for each American having the right to bear arms. It has certainly been a subject of conversation in the US; proponents argue that no one has the authority to take that right away from US citizens while opponents asking for an amendment that would allow the amendment to acclimate to current realities of the 21st century (Levintova, 2014). To understand the problem with the second amendment, one has to go back to the origin of the said law; the bill of rights was first created in 1789 along with the first ten amendments, to understand the intent of the authors of said amendments.

The article “On Racist Speech” by Charles R. Lawrence III discusses the issue of free speech and its involvement in racism, where the boundaries are not very well established between free speech and hate speech. Lawrence introduces the conflict found on university campuses, where the First Amendment is pushed to its limits with “face-to-face insults, catcalls, or other assaultive speech.” Lawrence also discusses the use of free speech as an outlet for the grievances of minorities, writing that “Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of our democratic system.”

A few college campuses across America have attempted to craft speech code regulations that restrict speech based on a fighting words approach, meaning they’ve tried to make hate speech on campuses punishable by applying the fighting words law into the college campus setting. As Timothy Shiell says in Campus Hate Speech on Trial they base this argument on three points: “1. The First Amendment does not protect fighting words. 2. Some campus hate speech constitutes fighting words. Thus 3. Campus hate speech codes punishing and preventing fighting words do not violate the First Amendment.” Two of the universities that have used this logic to create speech restrictions include the University of Wisconsin and Stanford University. While both speech codes have been struck down in court, these two codes were constructed with past cases and failed codes in mind, so that they’ve indisputably come the closest to being codes that the Supreme Court deems constitutional. Despite the ruling that these codes are unconstitutional, many advocates think that flaws were not in the speech codes, but rather, in the court’s decision.

The nation's leftists, whether in academia or the news media tout themselves as advocates of free speech. Back in 1964, it was Mario Savio a campus leftist who led the Free Speech Movement at the Berkeley campus of the University of California, a movement that without question played a vital role in placing American universities center stage in the flow of political ideas no matter how controversial, unpatriotic and vulgar.

Under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be compelled to provide the identity of a confidential source when the right freedom of the press outweighs society’s need for an individual to provide testimony to a grand jury. See Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972). The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” In Branzburg, this Court recognized a reporter-source privilege that protects reporters from divulging sources to a grand jury. Branzburg, 408 U.S. at 707, 709. This Court determined that this protect applies when the need for freedom of press outweighs the needs of a grand jury. Thus, a reporter is protected by the privilege when the information bears “only a remote and

Lawrence sheds light upon the very turbulent issue of the First Amendment right to the Freedom of speech in contrast to the inequality caused by its misuse through racially bias speech. The author states that the University officials should endorse some sort policy that will protect the rights of those who are victimized by this “racial nuisance,” while at the same time not censoring our constitutional right of free speech, “I am troubled by the way the debates has been framed in response to the recent surge of racist incidents on college and university campuses and in response universities attempts to regulate harassing speech” (Lawrence，65). Continually, Lawrence defines the set of ideals that the First Amendment was based on, particularly; equality. He goes on to show the audience that this very balance is

Ratified December 15, 1791, the bill of rights was added to the U.S. Constitution as a way to ensure the protection of every individual’s rights. The bill itself is a list of rights which limits the power of the federal government and gives power back to the people in the form of rights and liberties. Some of this rights include freedom of speech, religion, and press, but perhaps the one right that still to this day has many people questioning the meaning behind its wording is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states that “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (Acosta, 2008). In short the amendment grants the right to bear arms,

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is part of our countries Bill of Rights. The first amendment is perhaps the most important part of the U.S. Constitution because the amendment guarantees citizens freedom of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, amendment requires that there be a separation maintained between church and state.

Free speech is the fundamental right, almost assumed as a divine ordinance on humans. Preliminary development of free speech starts at universities. Though considered an integral part of academic institutions and student intellectual growth, in the recent past there is growing intolerance for free speech ‘opinions’ expressed through different mediums. This paper compares two texts, “Free speech is flunking out on college campuses” by Catherine Rampell, and “Restoring free speech on campus” by Geoffrey R. Stone and Will Creeley. This paper argues that any text, without provisioning a counter narrative for the core argument, is lacking in its sense of completeness and ability to pre-resolve reactionary dissent.

The 1st Amendment forbids Congress from enacting laws that would regulate speech or press before publication or punish after publication. At various times many states passed laws in contradiction to the freedoms guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. However broadcast has always been considered a special exemption to free speech laws for two reasons. 1) the most important reasons is the scarcity of spectrum and the 2) is the persuasiveness of the medium. Because radio and TV come into the house, and may be heard or seen by unsupervised children, the government feels a special responsibility to protect the American people. As Herbert Hoover said to, "doublegaurd them."

The First Amendment is the first section of the Bill of Rights and is often considered the most important part of the U.S Constitution because it guarantees the citizens of United States the essential personal freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and the freedom to petition the Government. Thanks to the rights granted by the First Amendment, Americans are able to live in a country where they can freely express themselves, speak their mind, pray without interference, protest in peace and where their opinions are taken into consideration, which is something not many other nationalities have the fortune of saying. The Founding Fathers were the framers of the Constitution of the U.S., and the responsible for the

The case of Brown Vs the Board of Education is, in a roundabout way, a case of racial speech. By not allowing mixed schools, a message is being conveyed that segregation is all right. This is a prime example of how this hate can cause real psychological problems and how a student can be so tormented by racist speech that he is deprived from gaining a full education. Although university officials have tried to eliminate racial harassment, their efforts have proven to be futile except in incidences of personal confrontation. Only words that arouse anger and result in violence are not protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendments is a blessing that the United States is fortunate enough to have. First and foremost, First Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and expression, without any government interference ("First Amendment" n.p.). The freedom of expression includes the right to free speech, press, assembly, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances ("First Amendment" n.p.). Redress of grievances guarantees people the right to ask the government to provide relief for a wrong through courts or other governmental action ("First Amendment" n.p.). People are allowed to practice their own religions and do not have to conform to one religion, all because of the First Amendment. People's rights are protected with no government interference.

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 to assemble peacefully, and to petition the Government for e redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech," this Amendment is the most important part of the constitution. Without free speech, we the people of the United States would not be able to speak openly and freely about issues that affect our everyday life.