Tag Archives: freedom

Should people be able to burn the Flag as a way to express themselves, or is it deemed dangerous and harmful?

The burning of the flag is a controversial topic for many people. Some people believe that it should be banned and is not respectful, while others think that it should be allowed and is away to express themselves freely. People argue whether or not the burning of the flag is/should be protected by the first amendment.

 

According to CNN “destruction on the American flag is protected by the constitution….even if the act is unsettling” meaning that you are allowed to burn the flag if you feel necessary to do so. However our president, Donald Trump has a different thought about the situation, and he has let his thought be well known. He believes “Burn the flag and go to jail” because it is a sign of disrespect towards our country and it should not be tolerated. Oddessy.com states that “it is an ineffective way to express disagreement.” It is important that we as a country respect our flag because it is a symbol of who we are. If there is something you do not agree with, you should not be allowed to burn the flag. The flag burning is also something that should not be protected by the first amendment. Our flag is a important part of the United States and it should become illegal to burn due to the substantial meaning behind it,

 

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/burning-american-flag-should-illegal

Why Burning The American Flag Should Be Illegal

“Why Burning The American Flag Should Be Illegal.” The Odyssey Online, 2017, https://www.theodysseyonline.com/burning-american-flag-should-illegal.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/29/politics/flag-burning-constitutional-donald-trump/index.html

Tal Kopan, C.

Tal Kopan, CNN. “What The Supreme Court Has Said About Flag Burning.” CNN. N. p., 2018. Web. 30 Sept. 2018.

Advertisements

Hate Speech; Can it be good?

IS/should Hate Speech be protected under the First Amendment. To begin Hate Speech is defined as, “Speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as, race, religion, sex, ethnicity, origin, etc…” As of right now Hate Speech is protected by the Constitution under the first amendment. This means the government can not put you in jail, fine you, etc… for Hate Speech, unless you are calling for violence/ Fighting Words. I believe this is the way it should be because people should be able to express their beliefs and opinions. Also, once some of our free speech rights get taken away it’s only a matter of time before they all do.

An example of someone trying to take away Free Speech is the recent court case of Matal v. Tam. In this case a band was trying to register their name, The Slants, with the U.S. Trademark Office they were originally turned down because it was seen as offensive toward Asian people, but after they took it to court the band ended up winning because under the first amendment they were protected.

Another example of someone being protected to express their opinion would be the court case of  Snyder v. Phelps . In this case the Westboro Baptist church went to a military funeral and posted signs and chanted anti-gay statements. The family sued and won 5 million in composition for emotional distress, but the Westboro Baptist Church was granted the right to keep protesting under the first amendment.

Altho, there are cases where people cross a line, Hate Speech should still be protected under our rights so people can express themselves as long as it never escalates  into fighting words and calls for violence.

Should Teams Be Able to Pray Before Games?

Essential Question: Should teams be allowed to pray together before games?

 

There has been a lot of controversy over the topic of the Freedom of Religion within the First Amendment.  Many are at war over whether teams should be allowed to pray before games or not. The problem sparked at Santa Fe High School around 1995 and was reassessed in 2015 and 2016 after a few more sport incidents.  The First Amendment may protect individual’s rights to freedom religion but when it comes to teams praying on a public school property, it is not protected.  This is because the government is not allowed to promote religion in any way.  How does this relate to a school sporting event you might ask.  Public schools are owned by the government.  If a public school were to teach about prayer, or allow teams to pray together before events, they could get in serious trouble because one may see this as promoting religion.  Individuals may take a moment of silence but they must practice their religion to themselves so they do not violate others rights.  Some may take The government regulates this closely so that no schools is deemed favored over another.  There have been several cases of this and no school has won due to the fact that the First Amendment does not protect them on this matter. 

Some may believe that this violates their Freedom of Exercise but it does not.  They are not banning you from your religious practices as an individual but they are protecting the rights of others and the laws that they have to follow.  If other’s rights are being violated then it can lead to serious conflicts between families of the school and would have to involve members of the school board.  If word got out of conflicts like this, it could hurt the school’s reputation or would cause even more arguments from people not involved in the situation.  For these many reasons, school athletic teams are not allowed to pray before games.

 

Works Cited:

Membership, ALCU. “Your Right to Religious Freedom.” American Civil Liberties Union, 2018, http://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-religious-freedom.

Carlson, Mr. David. “Establishment Clause.” LII / Legal Information Institute, 10 June 2009, http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause.

Ash, Elliott T. “Free Exercise Clause.” LII / Legal Information Institute, 4 May 2010, http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause.

Green, Lee. “Prayer, Religion-Related Activities at School Athletics Events.” NFHS, 13 Apr. 2016, http://www.nfhs.org/articles/prayer-religion-related-activities-at-school-athletics-events/.

What do you believe should be censored in our school?

Censorship in school is very controversial subject that could violate our obscenity limits under the First Amendment, everyone has different opinions and there is a very thin line on what is acceptable to some and what isn’t. Obscenity can be defined as something you know that is wrong when you see it, based on community standards. There have been many cases where students believe their rights are being violated by the school for not allowing them to wear or speak on something they believe in. One example is the Tinker vs. Des Moines case where about 4 students wore black armbands to school to protest the war and the school told them to take them off or go home. When they didn’t take them off they got suspended and were fighting that their rights were violated. The court ruled that school officials could not censor speech or actions unless it was disruptive or hurtful to others and in this case a plain black armband did not. This case is a huge point for future students and knowing what is right and what is wrong in the school setting. On the other hand, there are many parents that are concerned on what is happening in our schools and if it is too obscene. There are many fighting in Mississippi and even here at our school to get To Kill a Mockingbird removed from our curriculum because it is seen as offensive and hurtful to children of a young age. This book is supposed to make you uncomfortable and initiate discussion on how these situations they went through in the book are wrong. Censorship should be based on the schools rules and if a parent does not want their child reading a book they should be allowed a different option but it should not be taken away for everyone. I believe that schools should come together with students and make rules about what is obscene based on the setting and decide what they should censor. I think if we all agreed we wouldn’t have problems with the First Amendment and what is allowed and what isn’t. In the end it is hard to come to a conclusion on these problems because everyone has different beliefs on what should be allowed in school.

References

American Civil Liberties Union. (2018). Tinker v. Des Moines – Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Behalf of Student Expression. [online] Available at: https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression [Accessed 19 Feb. 2018].

NBC News. (2018). Opinion | Why do we still teach ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ in schools?. [online] Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/why-are-we-still-teaching-kill-mockingbird-schools-ncna812281 [Accessed 19 Feb. 2018].

STUART TAYLOR Jr., S. (2018). Court Hears School Censorship Case. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/14/us/court-hears-school-censorship-case.html [Accessed 19 Feb. 2018].

United States Courts. (2018). Facts and Case Summary – Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. [online] Available at: http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier [Accessed 19 Feb. 2018].

Burning the American Flag

Burning the American flag is symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an expression of an idea that doesn’t use words. For example, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted for desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. The Court determined if his conviction was consistent with the First Amendment. The Court of Criminal Appeals viewed Mr. Johnson’s conduct as symbolic speech which is protected by the First Amendment. “Given the context of an organized demonstration, speeches, slogans, and the distribution of literature, anyone who observed the appellant’s act would have understood the message that appellant intended to convey. The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly speech contemplated by the First Amendment.” Id., at 95. If Mr. Johnson was disturbing the peace there would be charges. Since Mr. Johnson wasn’t disturbing the peace with his desecration of the flag there were no charges.

A con to burning the American flag is that the American flag is losing significance. A citizen could see flag burning as a threat to the United States. Barry states on web.b.ebscohost.com, “Our freedom is protected institutions, groups and individuals; the police, legal system, ambos, parliament, and trade unions. The treat to our society will more likely come from within unless we are tolerate, accept people’s differences, and treat all those who come to our country with respect and dignity.” Burning the American flag is disrespectful towards our country.

Work Cited

Brennan, William J., and William H. Rehnquist. “Court’s Opposing Views Create Storm of Debate.” Palm Beach Post (West Palm Beach, FL), 02 Jul, 1989, pp. 1E+, SIRS Issues Researcher, https://sks.sirs.com.

Illawarra Mercury (2018). Flag has Lost Significance. [online] p.pg 15. Available at: http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=b9560f2e-626f-4f72-be1b-eaf4efe97c86%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=SYD-63GPV4XJJUO173JML1EO&db=n5h [Accessed 14 Feb. 2018].

Police arrest protesters at flag-burning outside convention. (2016). [Blog] Sofrep. Available at: https://sofrep.com/59653/police-arrest-protesters-flag-burning-outside-convention/ [Accessed 19 Feb. 2018]. 

Speech Codes: Are They a Scourge or a Savior to Free Speech?

Many people know the First Amendment: the right to expression, the right to peacefully assemble, freedom of the press, the right to petition the government, etcetera. However, not many people know where the boundaries of these rights lie. People push these boundaries all the time and right now college campuses are but one example. Administrators at colleges are attempting to enforce speech codes. Yet, does enforcing speech codes violate the right to free expression described in the First Amendment? How far can speech codes go before the contradict the rights to free expression and peaceful protesting described in the First Amendment?

There are many ways speech codes could be enforced. But depending on how they are applied, they could break the First Amendment. A few forms of expression, specifically in regards to free speech, that are not protected by the First Amendment are slander or libel, fighting words, and obscenity. This means that someone can not go in front of a crowd and defame, insult, threaten, or say anything that may be considered hate speech to someone without consequences. One example of hate speech can be seen in a video of Milo Yiannopoulous at UW Milwaukee. In this video, he verbally attacked and degraded a transgender student. They still were spoken with no point other than to make fun of a subject and way of life that Yiannopoulous did not agree with. Another example of hate speech and fighting words is threats. As stated by Ben Shapiro, some people “greeted the birth of [his] second child by calling for [him, his] wife, and two children to be thrown into a gas chamber”. There was no purpose to this statement other than to express a disagreement with his religion. Under the First Amendment, hate speech is not something you can say without consequences. Speech Codes cannot be used to prevent speakers with controversial opinions from speaking. They cannot prevent people from peacefully disagreeing and debating about topics. However, speech codes can apply consequences if that speech becomes hateful or slanderous since that speech would no longer be protected under the First Amendment.

Some Speech Codes are also attempting to limit the student’s right to peacefully protest a speaker. The First Amendment specifically says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. To restrict the right to peacefully assemble is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Yet, as seen on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education website, also known as FIRE, some college campuses are restricting the student’s rights to peacefully assemble and protest on the grounds that they are disrupting the speaker’s right to freedom of speech. Furthermore, the Wisconsin Campus Free Speech Act states that “protests and demonstrations that interfere with the expressive rights of others are subject to sanction”. There must be a line drawn as to what qualifies as disruptive and interfering demonstrations. The line is whether or not there is any form of violence or hate speech. If a protester simply said the speaker was wrong, held signs, and argued about right versus wrong, nothing can be done about it because they are protesting peacefully, as the First Amendment says they can. However, if a protestor started doing damage or cursing out the speaker, then they would have to face consequences. Recently at UC Berkeley, protesters became very violent at a speech by Yiannopoulous and had to be escorted off the premises. UC Berkeley encompasses what a protest that is not protected by the First Amendment is, and what Speech Codes can restrict.

In the end, Speech codes can be useful to make speeches more peaceful and clearly define punishments for breaking that peace, however, they must still subject to the First Amendment.

Sources:

EBSCO: The New Battle Over Campus Free Speech

Milo Yiannopoulos verbally attacks a transgender student (1:30-3:05)

The Atlantic: The Glaring Evidence That Free Speech Is Threatened on Campus

Wisconsin Campus Free Speech Act

A few examples of Hate Speech against Ben Shapiro

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)

UC Berkeley

When does protesting step over the line.

          Does creating buffer zones in front of public buildings violate a person’s right to peaceably assemble that is granted to them through the first amendment. In some places around the united states local governments are creating “buffer zones” around public buildings to prevent violent protesters from gaining access to the facility. In the past violent protesters have caused serious damage, for example the Berkeley riots in February of 2017. The people who participated in these riots were brought on by antifa and far-left socialists because they disliked the exercise of free speech by an individual named Milo Yiannopoulos. The “alt-left” were using and abusing the very same right they were trying to suppress. If there were buffer zones the violence could have theoretically been lessened. It is only ok for a local government to introduce buffer zones if they deem in necessary for the safety of the people they are sworn to protect. In 2014 the supreme court dismissed a proposed law from Massachusetts to create buffer zones outside of abortion clinics because people attempting to get inside were being heckled by right-leaning protesters.

          The first amendment should be upheld fully until the point at which its protections hurt the people it was implemented to protect. When protesting peacefully becomes full scale rioting it is time to step in and prevent violence. In general conservatives are known for holding the 1st amendment, and the rest of the constitution, in high regards. On the other hand Liberals are generally known for disliking some of the pillars of the constitution. In conclusion the 1st amendment does protect the rights of the people to protest but it doesn’t protect their right to riot and hurt other people.

Group against proposed Toledo law on abortion clinic access: EBSCOhost

” Group Against Proposed Toledo Law On Abortion Clinic Access: Ebscohost .” Web.b.ebscohost.com. N. p., 2017. Web. 27 Sept. 2017.

EDITORIAL: It’s a crime scene, not a ‘protest’: EBSCOhost

” EDITORIAL: It’s A Crime Scene, Not A ‘Protest’: Ebscohost .” Web.b.ebscohost.com. N. p., 2017. Web. 27 Sept. 2017.