The Film Spotlight And How This Film Does The Freedom Of Speech?

Media coverage of news events can be disseminated to the general public in any number of different ways and media biases often “reflects certain organizational and/or professional preferences or values” (Bennett 2011, 173). In fact, Lundman (2003) points out “that journalists assess the newsworthiness of homicides occurrences using the relative frequency of particular types of murders and how well specific murder occurrences mesh with stereotypical race and gender typifications (357).” In addition, Johnson (2012) felt that the real job of media was to “create a message that…grabs public attention (62).” In other words, can the media grab the public’s attention and hold it?

King, Geoffrey. "Clear and present danger: the NSA, surveillance and the threat to press freedom." Nieman Reports 68.1 (2014): 38+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of “free speech zones” has made its way to colleges everywhere. A “free speech zone” is a sidewalk sized place where students are allowed to speak their minds freely on college campuses. I know what you’re thinking. This sounds ridiculous. Why are there specific places for people to speak their minds? Aren’t colleges suppose to be a place where students speak their minds and learn new things? Universities should not be able to put any restrictions on free speech.

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

The Boston Catholic Church’s dangerous employment of power prevented justice and instead allowed for the growth in number of churches and children that were exposed to the sexually abusive priests through the concealment of the abuse.

Throughout the years of US jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to allow latitude to speech of the press and of the people. However, the restrictions on speech the Court determined to fall outside the limits of permitted speech and therefore considered “unprotected speech” include fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action, defamation, solicitations to commit crimes, child pornography, blackmail, perjury, obscenity, and false & misleading commercial speech. To look back at recorded foundations of the first amendment regarding speech – words used to incite imminent lawless action, can be seen in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The U.S. Supreme Court held that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” That is to say, a state can’t stop free speech unless there is imminent danger of inciting violence.

Two law professors, Ronald K. L. Collins and David M. Skover, in their novel, Death of Discourse illustrate the near tyrannical pleasure that Americans live under and the effects of this bliss in dulling the intellectual values of communication. Collins and Skover’s purpose is to enlighten the audience of how America’s glorified first amendment is warped into a means of blinding the public of society’s malfeasance. The two take on an edifying and forthright tone in order to allow the readers to gain clarity on how the media is warping american society; to show americans just exactly how the first amendment is misused.

The blueprint for the public sphere is “We can get together when we want. When we do, we can talk about what we want. For people who couldn't make it, we can write it down and pass it around. When everyone has figured out what we want, we can go to representatives and tell them what they need to do on our behalf. And nobody can be kept out of the process based on their religion,” (Cutbirth), in order for the American democracy to function properly the public sphere must function, and prohibiting reporters from public spaces threatens the public

Currently we have 27 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the choice of this author had to be the First amendment. Though the selection officially was “Freedom of the Press,” that constitutional guarantee is technically conjoined with its ‘brother’ amendment and that is the “Freedom of Speech.” You really cannot have one without the other. Ying-yang, these civil liberties were so significant to the Founding Fathers that they made sure to place them in the very first documented privileges articulated by the Constitution. For this presentation, primary focus and comparison is made to what will be the two most egregious and corrupt presidential scandals in this half-century, President Richard Nixon and President Donald Trump. On the

People are given the right through the freedom of press to debate or ague an issue that they believe to have received little justification. The liberty to express social views through media is necessary in the development of a healthy and efficient democracy, as making statements without fear of persecution constitutes the “eyes and ears” of the public. For example, it is stated in the excerpt from the Massachusetts Bill of Rights of 1780 that “the liberty of press is essential to the security of freedom in a state.” This statement supports that the freedom of press secures the other rights of a citizen, as it promotes the free exercise of words and language. This document, along with the final draft of the Bill of Rights, contributed to the basis of the freedom of press because the right to express one’s personal views and perspectives “ought [are] not to be restricted” or abridged to any

In the book Freedom for the Thought that we Hate, author Anthony Lewis takes a simply phrased law, the First Amendment and shows how complex freedom of speech really is once put into the real world of freedom, as we know it. He shows through his rejections of absolutism, strong support towards freedom restriction, and objective analysis of Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that the United States press is unlike any other in the world.

It also continues to be in an intense study conducted by Louis Harris in the media and public interest. The study dealt with public attitudes on a whole range of specifics on the First Amendment issues (Harwood, R., 1997). The first example in the significance of a majority that varies in percentages, complete or part enforced, on the press in reporting on the influential of public figures in sexual conducts (Harwood, R., 1997). Another is reporting secret evidence of the government's doing, in developing photographs of violent events, rape victims, and leaking to the press, or stories on compelling proof of political leader’s behavior (Harwood, R., 1997). The second example is most Americans citizens would have less or nothing in speech dealings with sex, homosexuality, religious cults, and other forms that present things to the public were making them disagree or dislike what was going on with these situations (Harwood, R., 1997). They would decide on judges of a lot of power to impose fines on publishers and television news for the inaccurate and one - sided report that would go against laws to make it easier for the accused to win against the press (Harwood, R., 1997). They would also have powerful people in the

I’ve not had the pleasure of reading a nonfiction book as intriguing and enjoyable as David K. Shipler’s Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword in a long time. The pages brought to life stories of secrecy and conspiracy, of authority and rebellion, and of missteps by public figures readers like myself often only get an outsider’s glimpse of. After first reading the introduction, however, I wasn’t sure how I felt; I couldn’t fully grasp what Shipler was saying and was concerned that the rest of the book would elicit similar feelings. Thankfully, those fears were alleviated only pages into Part I: Books. I found Shipler’s style of writing incredibly engaging and easy to follow, and the case studies were both interesting and new to

The United States constitution gives Americans many rights. One of those rights is the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has started hearing arguments in a case that could rewrite the rules for television stations now prohibited from pushing nudity or profanity on public airwaves. In the United States, while most American families view television shows with nudity, violence, and profanity as a threat to the traditional family structure. Some see it as their right to have those programs available to them on television. In The New York Times article “More Than Ever, You Can Say That On Television” by Edward Wyatt, the author addresses that the issue is not that the language and content on television is more inappropriate that previous years, but that it is show during all hours. I believe that these programs do not reinforce family values; they have a negative influence on children, and should be show after 10:00 PM.

The civil liberties that the American people have are inalienable rights. The most important of these is the freedom of speech. Yet freedom of speech is not entirely protected; using hurtful, false, or damaging speech is not allowed. But how can the American government control something as basic as speech? There are laws against libel and slander but how are they perpetrated? This essay will explain how the court cases and laws have evolved and been clarified throughout America’s history up to present day.