These “fighting words” are not protected under the first Amendment. Fighting words shouldn’t be a constitutional issue because people are allowed to speak, even is it will cause a flare in tempers. There is no society in which freedom of expression is absolute (Bangstad). In America, there are six different types of limitations on speech, and fighting words is one of them. The most confusing aspect of the Fighting Words Doctrine is that there is not a strict definition on what
One thing that sets America apart from other countries is its freedom. The freedom to say, do, or practice whatever one wants. Hate speech is part of that freedom. Not allowing “hate speech” is essentially telling someone, “Hey, you shouldn’t have an opinion.” There are quotations marks around the words hate speech because there’s no real guideline on what is considered a hate speech. It’s sort of a gray line.
The freedom of religion as described in the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”. The First Amendment keeps the government from establishing one specific religion for the whole country. There have been many instances where it seems as if the government has been trying to establish a religion. There are many ethnicities and religions that have different practices and rituals. Therefore, the government does not have the power to enforce a religion upon every citizen of the U.S.
In distinguishing between "curriculum" and "non-curriculum student groups," the Court stated that since Westside permitted other noncurricular clubs, it was prohibited under the Equal Access Act from denying equal access to any after-school club based on the content of its speech. It was constitutional because it served an overriding purpose by prohibiting discrimination. I, personally believe that If the supreme court did nothing about this issue, it would lead to even bigger controversy being that a certain group was denied its rights as Americans to have A) Their freedom of speech, B) their right to for a non-curriculum club, and C) Their right to practice religion. Now that would be unconstitutional more than anything else. It would be breaking the constitution in more than one
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 a redress of grievances. — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution According to the statement above and research, the First Amendment was written to protect freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. Religious minorities can be persecuted, protesters and media can be silenced, the press cannot criticize government, and citizens cannot mobilize for social change without the First Amendment. After explaining importance of First Amendment, I will explain how we can apply it to student newspapers. Is it constitutional for school officials to censor a school-sponsored publication, such as a newspaper or a yearbook?
Another reason vaccines are controversial is that there are still many risks that come with vaccines. Clearly, vaccines should not be mandatory. People should have religious freedom when it comes to vaccines. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees religious freedom. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”(“Should Any Vaccines
Speaking of the First Amendment, we should all remember what the actual documentation says: "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 a redress of grievances." Based on the first amendment, there is no "Hate Speech" to it as seen in some Colleges. College students defined Hate Speech as "ideas and opinions that run afoul of progressive pieties" (Davidson). Basically, whatever that is against the Liberal point of view is viewed as hate speech; however, such a thing as "Hate Speech" does not exist; there are only different opinions and point of views.
The first part concerns religion. By saying that congress can’t establish a religion, separation of church and state is given. No person can be made to be a certain religion by congress. It also gives the right to exercise their religion freely. Next comes freedom of speech and of the press, meaning that the people and press and say what they want (to a certain extent).
Though it is true that not all who are selected for random drug test will be guilty of substance abuse, there is no other fair way of doing it. In addition, it should be up to the government to allow jurisdiction that regulates this dangerous habit. Perhaps random searches are unconstitutional, but that is not the point being argued. The fact is that random drug testing is morally permissible even if it is not completely cohesive with the amendments. When have high morals and the government ever completely coincided?
Freedom is something this country fought to deserve and that is something no other nations can say. One freedom many Americans take for granted is the freedom of Religion. The freedom of Religion is the right for an individual to choose what they believe about topics such as the afterlife, God, Reincarnation , and Atheism. “We establish no religion in this country. We command no worship.