Overcriminalizing Speech: Annotated Bibliography

People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.

1.0 INTRODUCTION In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), freedom of speech falls under the Article 19 which is the freedom of opinion and expression. It protects one’s freedom ‘to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers’ (The United Nations, 1948). Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) adds that the freedom of expression could be ‘either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice’. Besides being an individual’s fundamental liberty of expression, Santa Clara University School of Law Professor Russell W. Galloway (1991) states that free speech is the ‘matrix of all other freedoms’.

Derek Bok and Charles Lawrence both write about free speech and its effect on the community. In “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, Derek Bok poses a discussion for the changing rules on a school campus in an effort to combat racist speech. Charles Lawrence’s article, “On Racist Speech” presents a detailed view on the history, effect and how to fix racist speech rather than give away control. In comparison, both articles broach the subject of racist speech, but Bok’s uses weak reasoning and analysis, whereas Lawrence's use of inductive and deductive reasoning, rhetorical appeals and fallacies make his the stronger article. David Bok’s reasoning for how racist speech can be solved is flawed.

Censorship of The First Amendment This paper will discuss how censorship denies citizens of the United States our full rights as delineated in the First Amendment. It will outline how and why the first amendment was created and included in the Constitution of the United States of America. This paper will also define censorship, discuss a select few legal cases surrounding freedom of speech and censorship as well as provide national and local examples of censorship.

Academic arguments cannot exist without a level of shared understanding. The entire ecosystem of authors writing, responding, arguing and developing new ideas depends on the idea that writers can apply their own interpretation to a build upon the understanding of a different writer. In Stanley Fish’s There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech and It’s a Good Thing, Too, Stanley Fish attempts to present his own interpretation of free speech.

In the article, “The Indispensable Opposition,” author, Walter Lippmann, argues his claim that we must view the freedom of oppositions as a way to improve our decisions in a democratic society rather than just tolerating that freedom of speech. When freedom of speech is tolerated and only seen as a right to speak, Lippmann believes that the liberty of opinion becomes a luxury. Moving forward, Lippmann then states that we must understand that the freedom of speech for our opponents are a vital necessity since it provides our own opinions to grow in improvement. Through practical experience, we realize we need the freedom of opposition and is no longer just our opponent ’s right.

This case clashes with freedom of speech, but it is also about freedom to

Could this categorical exclusion potentially chill vehement criticism of government officials? Along with examining these questions among others, this essay will explore the facts of Chaplinksy, analyze the different elements that constitute the fighting words doctrine, and finally argue that despite its intention the fighting words doctrine results in socially undesirable

The ability to speak freely is written in the bill of rights and has been preserved for decades, but when free speech turns into hate speech it brings up the widely deliberated issue about banning hate speech. There are many different perspectives on the issue of hate speech. Author of Hate Speech is Free Speech, Gov. Dean and Law professor, Glenn Harlan Reynolds, applies a strong historical perspective on the situation arguing that people are “constitutionally illiter[ate]” when they make the claim that hate speech is not part of the First Amendment. Believing that it is impossible to ban hate speech because everyone will always disagree with any idea, Reynolds focuses on the problems with banning hate speech and what might happen if hate

The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and expression; its goal is to keep the government from compromising free speech or punishing someone for the content of speech. However, there are

In the New York Times article “The Harm in Free Speech”, Stanley Fish argues that it would make no difference if Jeremy Waldron’s book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” was titled “The Harm in Free Speech”. While providing an insightful review of the novel, Fish promotes the ideas depicted in the novel. Fish argues that American society is obsessed with using the First Amendment to say outwardly offensive statements. Fish asserts that “hate speech” is not simply expressing an opinion, but rather a way to belittle members of society a person deems unworthy. Americans hide behind the First Amendment and use it as a justification to spew hate speech.

The Social Benefits of Protecting Hate Speech and Exposing Sources of Prejudice." Res Publica (13564765), vol. 22, no. 2, May 2016, pp. 225-242. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11158-015-9282-1. Stanley, Jay. “Civil Rights Movement Is a Reminder That Free Speech Is There to Protect the Weak.”

Is there negative and positive sides? History: The belief in the right to free speech is older than we believe it is. It actually goes back to the ancient Greeks (Antiquity).

Borders of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. While free speech is considered to be a basic right, as the Supreme Court has given the right to free speech. However, when such "free speech" crosses the line and becomes a threat, the courts have stepped in and punished the speaker. First Amendment does not protect free speech that has the intention of doing harm or damage.

Another limitation that does not protect citizens under the First Amendment is using fighting words that disturb the peace. In April 1940, Walter Chaplinsky was in downtown in Rochester, New Hampshire handing out literature and speaking publicly about religion. As Chaplinsky continued to talk, the crowd continued to grow, blocking the streets and disturbing the area. The public around him became upset with Chaplinsky as he began to denounce religion as “racket”.