While it is tempting to understand why Walter Chaplinsky was arrested and most people can understand the annoyance his speech must have caused, it was a law that should have been repealed.
Freedom of speech is such a fundamental right ingrained for more than 250 years that it needs to be protected even when the majority of listeners do not like or agree with what is being said.
Another case, in 1952 brings to light a different issue with regards to freedom of speech. In that case the leader of a white supremacy group was arrested for distributing literature claiming that the Negro race lacked virtue and other important characteristics.
While freedom of speech should be protected, it is also important not to allow hate filled speeches to be distributed in writing that are filled with non-provable information that could ultimately harm a group of people because it may be taken as fact.
The Ultimate Decision
Case law on students' freedom of speech reveals a limited but constitutional precedent for hate speech regulations within the academic environment. Regulations restricting other forms of student speech have been upheld under the special characteristics argument, which emphasizes universities' liabilities as learning institutions. Under this argument, students are considered captive audiences, thus universities can legally act to avoid disruptions to the educational environment, which hate speech can do (Russell, 1997)."
As much as most individuals will agree that certain speech is hurtful to others society by and large has the ability to correct itself by ignoring or shunning those who insist on voicing opinions that are unpopular or hateful and college students are capable of the same shunning which in turn brings pressure to the speech giver to cease and desist.
We cannot pick and choose which part of the constitution we are going to protect as the entire document embodies what the founding fathers intended when they put it together.
The exception to free speech should always of course address threats to do someone bodily harm however, this leaves the arena of free speech and enters a criminal intent and the desire to take away one's constitutionally...
"[T]here remains a distinction between autonomy, the ability to think for oneself, and self-expression, the communicating of one's thoughts to others. Both are important components of our interest in free speech" (Lichtenberg, 336). Still some believe that any infringement upon the media would diminish the amount of true information disseminated into society. Truth, though, is filled with ambiguity and is intangible -- the "truth" of the media story is based
Freedom of Speech History of Case Gitlow v. New York Gitlow v.New York was a decision that was made by the supreme court of the United States on June 8, 1925 which ruled that the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States extended the reach of limitations of the federal government authority that that had been set in the First amendment. The specific provisions were protection of freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is a human right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Yet, in the worlds of public and private employment, employers have some limited rights with regard to the things their employees can say. These generally differ for public and private employees. The main basis for this difference is the fact that public employees offer their services to the Government, which in turn is to act in
Freedom of Speech and Art "Freedom of speech' is a fundamental right of citizens of the United States. The constitution grants complete freedom of speech under the First Amendment which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
Freedom of Speech In 1776, the United States Constitution was signed to protect the freedoms of every American and to solidify the rights that so many were currently fighting for. It was the government that implemented ways for everyone to have equal rights to express what ever they deemed appropriate without the fear of there being repercussions for their actions. That is no longer the case. The government now, instead of
Which is the better course of action, Lawrence might ask himself. Should we censor the Westboro Baptist Church and forbid them their right to free speech, or should we allow them to express their wacky, and perhaps injurious views, and fight back with words of compassion, caring, and support. Just because we would like to make a knee-jerk, reactionary law and censor them does not make it the right
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now