Public Locations or Unequal, Unshared Locations?

1916 was the beginning on the controversy of whether or not public places should be able to not allow certain speakers and meetings to occur because of the possible danger to people, or even the beliefs of those in charge to rent out a place. By the time it was 1929, controversy over the banned play in Boston, Strange Interlude, took place at the Old South Meeting House on whether or not it should have been banned as a protest about it occurred. The First Amendment was taken into consideration as the idea of freedom of speech was being contended with. The public building took the community’s voice into the doors, and continued to in the future. Today, the public building serves to hold speakers no matter their popularity or even how controversial the speech may be. But, is this the right thing to do?

 

Today, there is still contradictions over whether or not public places should be able to control who speaks since public places are paid for through people in an area. An example of a dispute today right in Madison is mainly about Scott Walker wanting a law to protect offensive speech from occurring on campus. Will this repress speech, or protect violence? Previously on the UW-Madison campus, disruptive protests have happened and even a white nationalist group tried to form. This was all from speakers that were allowed to speak at the campus. Clearly, this is dangerous to all people surrounded in this city. Still, on the other side, a speaker by the name of Robin Vos said the campus allows too many liberal guest speakers, and the all of the contrasting ideas should be discussed and exposed to these college students. Another event that occurred was at the University of California-Berkeley. Ann Coulter is a conservative commentator who was supposed to speak at this university. Known violence was supposed to occur when she came, so Berkeley cancelled her event–twice. The Chancellor of Berkeley, Nicholas Disks said, ”This is a university, not a battlefield.” The campus also supposedly said the place was not secure by local police, making it unsafe for everyone, Coulter knew this was a lie. She was not happy with the university’s decision. Should she have been allowed to speak?

 

In conclusion, all over the United States there is so much discussion over whether or not public places can allow people who may cause a lot of negative actions to occur. There should be more control over who speaks so more events like the ones stated in the previous paragraph that happened on the UW- Madison campus do not occur and put our population into major danger. More security is needed for our people.

Sources:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/26/525745159/after-back-and-forth-ann-coulter-speech-is-off-at-uc-berkeley

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/university/scott-walker-wants-law-requiring-uw-officials-to-protect-offensive/article_fae53172-118b-5ae1-96dd-dd26e3de5bd3.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/04/26/ann-coulter-speech-canceled-at-uc-berkeley-amid-fears-for-safety/?utm_term=.614386d1855e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Freedom of Speech at Home/Work.

When it comes to freedom of speech they say we can talk about anything and anybody except for at work or a company. I completely understand that. You don´t want to represent your work in a bad way or bring any type of bad attention to it. But if you are not at work your freedom of speech should be protected. In Jemeles case her freedom of speech was sort of protected. She was Not at the work place when she made her comments on twitter yet they still tried to get her fired and ESPN was contemplating it.  Yet she made her comments at home. Why was this such a big problem then if she was at home? Because Trump wanted it to. He called her out and said she should be fired which then drew a whole lot more of attention to the it. Jemeles freedom of speech was protected but almost wasn’t because Trump thought he could take her rights.

 

Sources:

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=e139f102-f006-412b-82ee-9a55da53a677%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=APddb87ba8d1b445b79b7613d53e1e3ec3&db=n5h

http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=e139f102-f006-412b-82ee-9a55da53a677%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=APe274536623e74057a448c83e61a234d9&db=n5h

Freedom of Speech and Right to Petition

Can the Government limit freedom of free speech and right to petition against them?

There has always been people who will not agree or like what one has to say. When the government gets involved it definitely is a whole different thing. The sad part it is not that is happening just in the United States, but as well in other countries.  Other countries may still even be fighting for freedom of speech but those who have it, seem to still struggle through it. For example, according to the author Sussman, Leonard R. The year were governments seem to be interested press ethics more than journalist safety, due to the bloodiest records in 1994. The count of one hundred and thirteen journalist murdered in 27 countries. Evermore, in the council of Europe thirty five journalist in sixteen different countries were reported kidnapped or “disappeared”. Specifically, thirty seven murdered in Rwanda, Seventeen killed in Algeria, Eleven died in Bosnia, and around 1,460 not only physical, physiological, but also economic attacks in one hundred and eight countries. These are just a few facts that prove that governments do try to control in  their way free speech of journalist and petition against them.
Furthermore, according to Christian Century, who wrote an article based on a report of a petition for a reconsideration of the Unites States Supreme Court. Mainly which was based on a group of religious-liberties that wanted the government to reconsider that abortion protesters can be sued under the federal anti-racketeering law  (against making and organized crime) known as RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) . The article mentioned as well the NOW (National Organization of Women)  v.s. Scheidler case , and how the attorneys representing Rutherford Institute to rehear the case to be able to address the violation or breaking the law of free-speech rights from RICO. When I researched more about the case I found out that the Supreme Court ruled that the protesters were ordered to pay over $85,000 to two abortion clinics in Chicago. The abortion providers did not obtain to prove that the protesters were part of and “extortion”, but the trial court allowed them to link the protesters actions to few violent acts committed through other anti-abortion protester events. The overall case proves how the Government will not help those who protest their freedom of speech. Even where there is no evidence to do so, they will allow others against them to find a way to win.

One can see with these two articles and with further research that even tho the First Amendment is created, even though the U.S.  Government may not get as violent, powerful, or unfair, it definitely still limits one’s freedom of speech and protest in their best way possible.

1.http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=12&sid=2bb940d6-9da3-45a5-8302-0e64577cea89%40sessionmgr120&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=9502143250&db=ulh

2. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=eb7659f1-ea2d-4547-bfaa-5792cc3be310%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=9404064174&db=ulh

3.https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/pr399

 

 

 

 

hate speech

How do we tell the difference between freedom of speech, and when it’s a hate speech? As of 1942 Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment in supreme court case Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words. In a case Brandenburg v. Ohio it talks about a kkk clans member that was convicted of hate speech because he talked about overtaking the government, but is this hate speech? In his defense he said “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.” https://www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215. In another case r.a.v. v. city of st. paul (1992), Several teenagers allegedly burned a crudely fashioned cross on a black family’s law, but only one of the tennarges where charged with criminal ordinace. Later the trial court dismissed the charge. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-7675. So what is crossing the line and what isn’t crossing the line with hate speech?  Hate speech can be dangerous because it can affect someone’s life, and how other people in the world see them, which can make the world more dangerous for certain people.

Continue reading hate speech

The World is Ending! Or is that just Satire?

Throughout history, there has been many examples of Satire, or as it is more commonly know today as Fake News. You hear and see it all over the place whether it be on TV or on Facebook and other things like that. They use catchy titles and then once people are in they give them information that they know is either true or false but the reader doesn’t always know. In today’s day and age, there is so many places to get news from but because of that people don’t know whether it’s real or fake news. With all of this this you may wonder, is Satire protected under the first amendment? In 1988, there was a magazine named Hustler Magazine that posted pictures of nude women and political satire among other things. They posted a head shot of a man named Jerry Falwell and put certain words together that he actually said but in a different order about a sexual accouter. Falwell claimed it ruined his reputation and tried to sue Hustler for publishing it. The Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in favor of Hustler because he did nothing wrong and no one in their right mind would believe the story to be factual.  

Many people use Satire for their shows or blogs so people read them or watch them. In turn, if people read and see something they don’t like or agree with, they automatically call it fake news. Nobody knows what is true or not but to be fair, a lot of what you see is satire. People make livings off of satire, such as Stephen Colbert. A lot of people believe everything he says to be true.

 

“Hustler Magazine V. Falwell.” En.wikipedia.org. N. p., 2017. Web. 3 Oct. 2017.

Gioria, Ted. “The Death of Satire.” July 2015.

How do we tell the difference between freedom of speech, and when it’s a hate speech? As of 1942 Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment in supreme court case Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words. In a case Brandenburg v. Ohio it talks about a kkk clans member that was convicted of hate speech because he talked about overtaking the government, but is this hate speech? In his defense he said “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.” https://www.thoughtco.com/hate-speech-cases-721215. In another case r.a.v. v. city of st. paul (1992), Several teenagers allegedly burned a crudely fashioned cross on a black family’s law, but only one of the tennarges where charged with criminal ordinace. Later the trial court dismissed the charge. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-7675. So what is crossing the line and what isn’t crossing the line with hate speech?  Hate speech can be dangerous because it can affect someone’s life, and how other people in the world see them, which can make the world more dangerous for certain people.

 

“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