Tag Archives: Freedom of Speech

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  https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/confederate-flag-furor  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 https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article214551235.html 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 https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article217783980.html 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.


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.” Nytimes.com. 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.

Social media bans free speech?

Twitter, instagram, Snapchat, etc. all familiar names to people living in and well connected and free liberated place. Here we all believe our first amendments are a must and should and possibly have been honored for years and years to come. With the newer developments of social media things like  sharing free speech, ideas and the right to expression have been more accessible than ever. That is until someone crosses the line and posts something that maybe be demeaning and hateful towards woman or the LGBTQ community or something of the sorts. Then what should those free speech and right to expression enthusiastic sites do. Ban those accounts that are discriminatory, preaching hate speech or releasing obscenic content? If so then were can they draw the line between accounts that are purposely hurting people and those who are actually exercise go their amendments. This poses a new question for our society, Do social media outlets (twitter, Snapchat, instagram,etc.) violate the right to free speech when banning or suspending accounts for hate speech?

It’s a very hard line to draw. Nonetheless, social media hinders free speech in one way or another. No matter where you stand on the line, left, right, center, you will see the effects. If people are using their right to free speech in a negative or abusive way then social media should have the right to ban or delete an account after at least one fair warning. Many areas of social media are having a difficult time drawing the line between what is acceptable and what is hurtful or even offensive to others. And to be completely fair anything can be deemed as offensive or hurtful in this day and age. Even schools are prohibiting the use of social media and even banning some accounts.

According to the District Administration, High Schools are trying to determine what is acceptable to permit in the classroom. The social media that they accept has to be permitted for educational purposes and not used inappropriately but students and/or teachers. The big idea for schools and social media is safety vs. free speech, which one is more important.

According to Daily Telegraph, Universities are even challenging violation on free speech. One University banned its Conservative Society’s social media accounts for bringing to light a survey highlighting that the University is “very intolerant of free speech”.

According to New York Times, twitter, a media outlet highly known for its free speech, has recently been banning certain accounts due to the usage of dehumanizing and hateful speech. Twitter has made multiple statements explaining their usage policies.

Overall I think one can see that social media has no way of protecting everyone from hateful speech without putting some sort of limitations of the first amendments. There really is no way to censor everything that everyone says, therefor people need to either not be so sensitive, be more respectful or not use social media. 


Works Cited

HarryYorke. “Students’ Union Bans Tories in Free Speech Row.” Daily Telegraph (London), Mar. 2017, p. 9. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=8Q2123134966&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Schachter, Ron. “Social Media Policy: Safety vs. Free Speech.” District Administration, vol. 49, no. 8, Aug. 2013, p. 48. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=103369527&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

CECILIA KANG, and KATE CONGER. “Inside the Struggle at Twitter Over What Warrants a Ban.” New York Times, vol. 167, no. 58051, 11 Aug. 2018, p. B1. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=131175628&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Lies for Clicks

What if I were to tell you that, “President Trump Declares War on California!” Would you believe it? Would you even read the article or would you just click the little ‘share now’ button? Well, believe it or not, that little false statement of mine is apart of America’s current problem… Fake News.

Many people ask, “What is this ‘Fake News’?” Well, so-called fake news can come in many different forums. Such programs like Saturday Night Live’s (SNL) Weekend Update or The Onion focus on making fake news based on comedy or satire. These articles or skits are mainly used as forms of entertainment. While others may focus on producing ‘clickbait’. Article titles such as “The Secret They Don’t Want You to Know” or “The Trick They Hate” can be found all over Facebook, and on tabloids, such as Globe. These ‘clickbait’ titles are meant to get the best of their reader. They make the article seem so enticing that you have to click it. Only to be disappointed. Disappointed because you either saw/watched 30 seconds of ads for a lie or you actually bought that tabloid. Quoting Jim Gaffigan, “…momentary pleasure followed by incredible guilt…” (Mr. Universe) That is all clickbait really is, it’s false information that we are so desperately curious about… only to be lied to.  

Now one may be asking, “Can we stop it?”. Well, it is hard to fully stop it, without limiting Freedom of Speech & Press, but companies are doing there best to limit it. Facebook is one of these companies and it is done so by introducing human fact checkers in its new usage policies, back in 2016. Users can also be the ones to stop the spread of this fake news. By doing our own part in not clicking on the link that looks like a scam and not sharing it. If everyone did this, it is possible to extremely limit or even put a stop to this false information. Until then, just keep on scrolling.


Work Cited:
“Los Angeles Times – We Are Currently Unavailable In Your Region.” Latimes.Com, 2018, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-facebook-fake-news-20161215-story.html.
Tomar, David. “11 Reasons We’re Too Dumb To Resist Clickbait.” Thebestschools.Org, 2017, https://thebestschools.org/magazine/why-clickbait-works/.
“Can We Stop Fake News?.” The American Prospect, 2018, http://prospect.org/article/can-we-stop-fake-news.
“Free Image On Pixabay – News, False, Concept, Information.” Pixabay.Com, 2018, https://pixabay.com/en/news-false-concept-information-2094394/.

Breaking the American Way

What would you do if you witnessed a person protest a professional’s work right outside the workplace?  Laura Laursen receives this treatment on her way to work in southern Illinois. She mentally prepares because she knows people will hate on her job… performing abortions.  Newsweek.com quotes her saying “I’ve gotten used to it by now… but if I were any other kind of physician, this kind of violence and harassment would not be apart of my daily job…”.  There are multiple protesters outside the clinic. In response the town has created “buffer zones”. The zones create a “bubble” around the the clinic that the protesters must be outside of.  Is this the American way?
The part of the first amendment that we are looking at reads “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”.  The buffer zones should not be allowed according to the constitution. Buffer zones prohibits the protesters practice their right of expression. Some people argue that the protesters are harassing the doctor, and they should be given barriers due to that.  However, harassing is illegal only if it is based on a person’s age, race, national origin, sex, religion, or disability. The law does not protect citizens from receiving hate for the person’s profession. The city must repeal the buffer zone, and Laura Laursen will be receiving harassment from protesters.  It is the American way.



“First Amendment.” LII / Legal Information Institute, 2010, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment.
Oclaborlaw.Com, 2018, http://www.oclaborlaw.com/labor5.pdf.
Solis, Marie. “Abortion Clinics Experiencing Surge in Death Threats, Harassment under Trump, Study Finds.” Newsweek, 9 May 2018, http://www.newsweek.com/abortion-clinics-death-threats-harassment-916184.

Is social media restricting your freedom of speech?

Should social media be able to restrict what you post? I think to some extent, social media should be able to control what some people post. There always is that fine line in social media of what is acceptable to post and what isn’t. If their post can be offensive to a group of people the post should be taken down. For example, saying you don’t like an actor because they’re Muslim. If someone expresses their hatred towards a person about things that they’ve done that doesn’t threaten the person that the post is about, then it’s fine. An example would be, I don’t like ______ because they said _______ about ________.

In the past two months, there has been a big debate in the Marvel community on whether James Gunn, the director of the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, should be rehired after a ton of disrespectful tweets arose from ten years ago. Everyone in the cast from Guardians of the Galaxy posted a letter in support for rehiring James Gunn despite the tweets. However, Disney made a statement that they weren’t going to rehire him. Many of James Gunn’s tweets from ten years ago were about rape and pedophilia which makes sense why Disney fired him since they’re a very family-friendly business.

The pro to having social media restricting what you say is that people being “exposed” for what they said in the past won’t bite them in the butt in the future. There is also a con to having social media restrict what you say. Many conservatives on social media feel as if censorship is a bad thing. Professor Eric Gander states in Gretel Kauffman’s article Twitter Bars Alt-Right Accounts, “…individuals who are liberal are really not committed to liberal values, they’re committed to censorship.” Now I agree with the fact of social media can’t just altogether ban alt-righters from saying what they believe, it’s just when some of their beliefs offend a group of people by being racist, sexist, etc. Social media’s platform should be as neutral as it can without restricting others rights because they don’t have the typical liberal views, but also keeping in mind one’s limits to not offend people.

Banning Books Because of Controversial Ideas

As of recently, the want to ban books from libraries has been increasing. Why is this? Some books contain controversial concerns that the majority of the public does not agree with. However, many people believe that this is a violation of the first amendment: Freedom of Speech.

Does Banning Books from Libraries violate the Freedom of Speech Amendment?

The controversy of banning books ultimately stems from the differing political, societal, and cultural views that people obtain, and feel very strongly about. Part of the public eye feels strongly about keeping books that discuss “touchy” subjects out of libraries, while other parts of the public believe that banning books from libraries would be taking away from our human right of freedom of speech. By banning books from libraries, the information the public can or cannot access would be monitored, which does not allow the public to gain access to all available information and knowledge. Therefore, not allowing people to hear what others have to write can limit the right to speech. As stated in the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, “out of the 2,244 U.S. adults surveyed in March 2015, the percentage who felt that certain books should be banned increased by more than half since the last similar study conducted in 2011.”

A large part of the reason why a part of the population believes that some books should be banned is due to cultural morals, like race. For instance, many schools are pushing for the banning of Harper Lee’s novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. The Biloxi Public School District in Mississippi agrees with this. The school district argued that the book contains slurs that “made some people uncomfortable because of its racist language.” Therefore, this classic novel has been deemed “unacceptable” by the Biloxi Schools, and many other schools too. Without students being able to access this novel, they cannot read it through their library, even though some schools do not like their students reading it, it limits their reading options. Students are unable to learn from the real message of the book, which is not racist, in fact it is the opposite. This same source says that before the book was deemed unacceptable, the same school district described the book as a “classic with a focus on developing an appreciation for how ethical principles or laws of life can help people live successfully.” And this is only one example. Books bring education, and sometimes that means that people need to discuss controversial problems so that people can learn from them. If books never discussed touchy subjects, then people could never learn from their mistakes. This is part of what the first amendment gives people the right to do: discuss debatable ideas. This is why books should not be banned from libraries, and why many people agree that they should not be. In an article titled “Why Your Kid Should Read Banned Books,” the author explains how kids often relate to banned books because the stories feel familiar with their own lives, and that will start conversation. Reading these books can help people learn and they can help people “define their own values and opinions of content.” People have every right to be able to do that.

All in all, banning books from libraries does violate the first amendment: Freedom of Speech. Although some books in libraries contain argumentative ideas, those ideas often help people learn. When there are issues brought up in books, the solution should be education. In order to educate people about these issues, it is crucial to speak about them. You cannot acquire information about a subject without hearing about it from a source, and many people go to libraries and use books for that specific purpose. So, granted libraries are still banning books, they should really consider whether they are banning books solely because they touch on matters that not everyone agrees with, or if the material should really truly be banned, because often times they are taking away from a person’s database of knowledge. A person has to know what they are talking about in order to speak, so taking away the right to books in libraries would violate freedom of speech.


Works Cited

Calvert, Clay. “Why Are Libraries Still Banning Books?” Newsweek, 23 Apr. 2016, www.newsweek.com/how-come-libraries-are-still-banning-books-379958.

McMahon, Regan. “Why Your Kid Should Read Banned Books.” Common Sense Media: Ratings, Reviews, and Advice, Common Sense Media, 3 Sept. 2018, http://www.commonsensemedia.org/blog/why-your-kid-should-read-banned-books.

“Poll Shows Growing Support for Book Banning.” Edited by Henry Reichman, Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, Sept. 2015, file:///home/chronos/u-5544403311d82ad7e26aaad88a38032eee6198c1/Downloads/525-281-PB%20(6).pdf.

Strauss, Valerie. “Analysis | Top 10 Books in 2016 Most Challenged in Schools and Libraries. No. 9 Is a Series Written by Bill Cosby.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 16 Oct. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/10/16/top-10-books-in-2016-most-challenged-in-schools-and-libraries-no-9-is-a-series-written-by-bill-cosby/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.182bd6e29067.