Freedom Of Expression

Topic: Burning of the Flag

Essential Question: Should the burning of the Flag be protected by the 1st Amendment or should it not?

Should burning of the Flag and/or taking a knee during the national Anthem

be protected by freedom of speech? Several, people believe that it should be banned and the actions presented was not in any way respectful, although others have thought that it should be allowed and is also, away to express their freedom.

Many sources state that the burning of the American flag is protected by the 1st Amendment, although it is unpleasant. Meanwhile, Donald Trump our well known president, thinks differently about the situation. Stating that “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or a year in jail!”. But, others sees it is away to express disagreement. Just like kneeling during the National Anthem. If we ban the burning of the flag we should might as well ban our freedom of expression in total, then how free would we be?


  • All you need to know about why NFL players are taking a knee and where it came from
                  “All You Need To Know About Why NFL Players Are Taking A Knee And Where It Came From.” The Independent. N.                       p., 2018. Web. 5 Oct. 2018.
  • Flag Burning or Desecration
              “Flag Burning Or Desecration.” American Civil Liberties Union. N. p., 2018. Web. 5 Oct. 2018.
  • Flag burning and the First Amendment: Yet another look at the two – National Constitution Center
    “Flag Burning And The First Amendment: Yet Another Look At The Two – National Constitution Center.” National Constitution Center – N. p., 2018. Web. 5 Oct. 2018.

Confederate Flag


Essential Question: Does freedom of speech protect your rights to intimidate me?

You can’t do that

Does freedom of speech protect your rights to intimidate me, all the people inside the world has a right to say whatever ever they want but only in the united states, the confederate flag is something that many black men or women would be pissed about it. But many people it’s mainly down south because that were racism normally came from back in the day and  the redneck I would say would do it. Have something like the confederate flag they have there right to put up whatever they want, but those are fighting expressions on what they are doing and showing. They have that right to freely express themselves, but if it makes other people angry then there is going to be confrontation between the people who thinking they  are doing the right thing for themselves , but doesn’t know that they are hurting other people. In the article  it showed that the they wanted to ban all confederate flags from the flagpoles of the administrations cemtries. But some others got really upset and still wanted it to be up there. And they didn’t care and still changed it.

People don’t agree that having confederate flags is bad they are thinking they are doing there own kind of work and showing there on beliefs and they dont think its bad at all.  Also another thing that we should change is the way they come about it like this article right here and then go down to the end of the page and you can see that teens from Alambma cleaved county gets suspended because they are doing something outrages and uncaused for. Also another thing is that they can do all that because they have the first amendment right to do that and save them, but inside a school free and safe place for many kids you can’t express how you feel towards in color of people. The first amendment allows you to to express how you feel and what you feel just goes about how you do it towards another person or not or a group of people that’s why it’s outrageous for them to have the confederate flag because it causes so many issues. And finally how it happens is that a shooting happened in columbia confederate flag was taken down from it and they took it down since it was causeing so many troubles.




Confederate Flag News Coverage

“Confederate Flag News Coverage.” NBC News. N. p., 2015. Web. 2 Oct. 2018


Confederate flag coming back to the SC State House on Tuesday

“Confederate Flag Coming Back To The SC State House On Tuesday.” thestate. N. p., 2018. Web. 2 Oct. 2018.



Confederate flags fly at Clemson. Here’s how students responded

“Confederate Flags Fly At Clemson. Here’S How Students Responded.” thestate. N. p., 2018. Web. 2 Oct. 2018.

Does praying before taking your spot on the field violate the First Amendment?

High school football programs around the country are being discriminated by people and the Supreme Court because of them praying before the team goes onto the field. Whenever a team is kneeling and praying, some people in the stands are thinking that it’s against the First Amendment and that the district should be sued. So, does praying before taking your spot on the field violate the First Amendment?  If players and coaches from a high school team want to pray before football games, let them, they aren’t breaking the law. It’s like doing the national anthem before any event, is that a violation? If students and/or coach wants to pray before a game people should let them. Students and/or coaches who are forcing the other players to pray shouldn’t be forcing them to pray. People should be making their own decisions on whether they want to join the prayer or not. A Santa Fe school in Texas is allowing student-led prayers before football games, people are ruling against it and saying that it’s a violation of the First Amendment. This is leading into a case that had been going on for 5 years. The Supreme Court is allowing student-lead prayers only if it’s approved by the government.

Tennessee school fan filed a complaint saying the prayer was against the constitution. A graduate from the school and an organizer of Sunday’s prayer service comes out and says his opinion on the issue saying, “I feel like students on school property should have freedom of speech, we just wanted to come together as believers and support one another and love each other.”  Prayers should be a choice to players and coaches. If a team wants to pray, they shouldn’t be discriminated because it’s against the First Amendment because it’s not against it. Everyone has freedom of speech.

Should flag burning be legal in the USA?

I would like to start this out with saying, that it is not directly illegal to burn the fag, but it is morally wrong, unconstitutional, and some may argue that it is communist. Burning the flag is completely legal, and is not going to end you up in jail, as our current president, Donald J Trump is trying to persuade our government into believing.(‘’abc news’’) The thing is, flag burning was illegal up until 1969, but that law changed when the law made it alright to burn the flag due to “burning the flag is one of the approved ways to destroy a too worn flag” -”the law dictionary’’ which is why flag burning is allowed today, people take advantage of this law and burn flags as a sign of outrage against our country.  In conclusion, flag burning is a symbol of hate but is legal.


Praying Before a Football Game, Free Exercise or Imposing on Others?

Free exercise of religion has been an ongoing issue the American society has yet to find a resolution for. Leading a Christian prayer before a football game has been one of those situations where it is very difficult to classify it as a first amendment right to freely practice your own religion, or if it is imposing on other people. There is not much difference in opinions of students on if they simply pray for team unity, or if they pray for religious reasons; 52% say it is for team unity and 48% say it is for religious reasons according to an article written by the Omniscient. The survey just represents how hard this issue is to classify as one thing or the other, and how to resolve this tension.

There is also a fine line with the authority of a student leading a prayer or a coach leading one. A student has less authority to the situation because they aren’t the ones leading the team and who everyone looks up to, however, with the coach leading in prayer some may feel compelled or forced to participate in the prayer because that is their coach and they may feel like it is their duty to follow what he or she says, even if they may not believe in what they are saying. A student, Quade Zimmerman, who is not a Christian and is on a football team that prays before every game, responded to this idea and said himself that “We make it a choice if it’s the players, but not if it’s the coach. He has more authority, so he gets to say what goes and what doesn’t.”

The number of people who believe Christian prayer should be allowed at schools is dwindling, so that gives people, who previously were extremely outnumbered, an opportunity to speak up. There has always been students and other people attending the games who have been feeling left out or inferior because their other teammates and other attendees are praying, but that they are less of a minority, the battles are getting more intense, and more prevalent in our society. An anonymous student explained this feeling of inferiorness to his fellow teammates by saying “While they are praying I quietly stand to the side because I don’t believe in what they are praying about and I feel like I shouldn’t participate. Sometimes I feel like the team is judging me and that is very difficult.” Nobody should have to feel like they are at the bottom of the totem pole on a team that is supposed to be unified and working together, which is why we need a solution to this ongoing issue.

Recommendations made by the US Supreme Court have been to allow students to pray individually, and not have a specifically led prayer that leaves other students of different religions feeling left out and judged. Finally, although people argue that a coach leading a prayer before a football game is harmless and only brings unity to the team,how can a team be unified if there are students standing off to the side and feeling lesser than their fellow football players?  This is why we, as a nation, need to have individual prayer before sports games, so everyone can practice their own prayer for their own religion and still bring unity to the teams by all of the students feeling welcomed and loved.

Creative Title Involving Social Media and The First Amendment

Is using social media in schools protected by the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment. Social media is used by a number of high school students, and schools are finding out just how much students like it.


Sachin Maharaj, an opinion writer, argues that schools should permanently ban social media platforms in classes. She cites the Toronto District School Board’s statement that students are not using Snapchat, Instagram, or Netflix for educational purposes. The board claimed that these apps were clogging up the district’s network, making administrative tasks difficult to complete. Maharaj also cites a 2016 study funded by the National Science Foundation. The study found that when given the opportunity, even the most motivated and intelligent students access the internet in class for non-educational purposes, spending more time browsing the web than paying attention to their class. This causes the students’ academic performance to suffer.


Steve Nicholls, the author of “Social Media in Business.”, says schools should not ban social networking sites. Nicholls argues that, as technology grows, schools will not be able to grow with it if they ban social networking sites. Nicholls claims that, if implemented properly, social media presents a world of opportunities that outweigh the risks of having it in schools. Social media has become so integrated into our daily lives, we would be a doing disservice to students by not incorporating it into schools.


“My View: Don’T Ban Social Media From Schools.” N. p., 2018. Web. 24 Sept. 2018.

“Why Schools Should Ban Snapchat Permanently | The Star.” N. p., 2018. Web. 24 Sept. 2018.


Free Speach bubbles outside Abortion Clinics

Essential Question: Do buffer zones outside of abortion clinics violate the first amendment?

A hot topic in American politics is the debate over the legality of abortion, and both sides are very politically active participating in marches, rallies, and protests. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution gives Americans the right to assemble and protest in public spaces, and it is the protesters’ fundamental goal is to interact with and be heard by as many people as possible to try and persuade people to join their side. Abortion clinics are public property, so protesters should be legally entitled to assemble outside of these facilities. But, in many cases, the protesters become disruptive and interfere with the patients. Where should the government draw the line in order to make sure that protesters are heard while protecting those wishing to access these abortion clinics?

In 2007, Massachusetts created 35-foot buffer zones around the entrance of abortion clinics citing a history of harassment and violence. The supporters of the law claimed it was an essential measure to protect public safety and health care access, but opponents argued that the law blatantly discriminates against pro-life activists and only protected people from speech that they didn’t want to hear. The supreme court ultimately struck down this law because they decided it silenced the opponents of abortion which violates their first amendment rights.

In 2000, Colorado had enacted a law that does not allow for protesters to be within 8 feet of people within 100 feet of health facilities without their consent. This law was upheld by the supreme court. Justice Stevens said, “the statute is not a regulation of speech. Rather, it is a regulation of the places where some speech may occur. Although the statute prohibits speakers from approaching unwilling listeners, it does not require a standing speaker to move away from anyone passing by. Nor does it place any restriction on the content of any message that anyone may wish to communicate to anyone else, either inside or outside the regulated areas. It does, however, make it more difficult to give unwanted advice, particularly in the form of a handbill or leaflet, to persons entering or leaving medical facilities.” This bill is not a perfect solution and most people are not satisfied with it because depending on their viewpoint felt it didn’t protect patients enough, it limited free speech too much, or it was too difficult to enforce. The balance between allowing free speech and preventing obstruction is still being debated today and does not appear to have an end in the foreseeable future.


Works Cited:


Liptak, A. and Schwartz, J.

Liptak, Adam, and John Schwartz. “Court Rejects Zone To Buffer Abortion Clinic.” N. p., 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2018.



Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000)

“Hill V. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000).” Justia Law. N. p., 2018. Web. 25 Sept. 2018.

“Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” ~Benjamin Franklin, writing as Silence Dogood