First Amendment Free Speech Analysis

This section is an extension of the privacy act. It states that you have the right to say what you may. However, it is the same way with the freedom of speech. You are allowed to express your opinion on multiple topics. You cannot say anything that is sensitive or may cause a rally or fight.

The “Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition” case was argued on October 30, 2001 by the Attorney General Ashcroft. It was a case to decide if the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 (CPPA) was constitutional or not (Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition). The CPPA prohibits “any visual depiction including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer-generated image or picture” that “is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” and any sexually explicit image that is “advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that convey the impression” it depicts “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct” (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition).  “It took place at the United States Supreme Court

It simply says “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech” ("First Amendment (ratified 1791”). Nowhere in the Amendment does it specify what kind of speech is protected. In addition, United State also violated its citizen’s right by creating a law (The Federal Obscenity Statute) to limit the speech of the people, which is an

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.

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.

Christopher McCall Laura Retersdorf English 1102 10/12/16 Annotated Bibliography Buchhandler-Raphael, Michal. " Overcriminalizing Speech. " Cardozo Law Review 36.5 (2015): 1667-1737.

The 1st Amendment explicitly gives the people freedom of expression in the United States of America. Users may have the potential to endanger someone’s life but that is the job of other establishments to censor, block, and report, not the Congress. For example, in the Reno v. ACLU (1997), the court unanimously came to a conclusion that anti-indecency provisions such as the CDA violated the first amendment. The Communications Decency Act held that Congress can filter the internet if images or comments were “criminalized “obscene or indecent” speech transmitted to children or if it “criminalized the delivery of “patently offensive” information to children” (Reno v. ACLU (1997) Case Background).

The landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1896, upheld public segregation based on the color of one’s skin, is known as Plessy v. Ferguson ​ . The decision by the justices on the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of separate but equal facilities based on race ​ .​ The practice of segregation based on race stayed in effect for over sixty years until it was overturned in 1954 by the Supreme Court decision in

Censorship can be described as the act of cutting out certain material that can be considered obscene or inconvenient for the community. This material can be found in social media such as in the TV, radio, or the internet. Censorship can be challenged because of the first amendment: freedom of speech. Free expression is the right of expressing opinions and ideas without any fear of being restrained or censored. However, freedom of speech does not include the right to incite actions that would harm others or the distribution of obscene material (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2000).

1a) The internet is compared to provide an interpretation of the first amendment protection as it was not present at the time of passing protection laws as a communication medium to find a common ground because it has similarities and as well as differing natures, values, abuses and dangers to the library, television and public places which the law treats differently. Libraries: It requires the libraries to enable the filter to Internet access for adults as well as children if they want to receive funds for Internet hookups.

In 1988, two years after the Bethel School District v Fraser case, another public school petitioned the United States Supreme Court regarding an action of censorship decided by the school against the school student’s journal. Known as Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , this case will be analyzed by the US Supreme Court justices, mostly, in reference to the Bethel School District v Fraser case. The precedent of Bethel School District v Fraser case’s ruling has heavily weighted on Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier case in a sense that, once again, the Court has decided to overturn a decision of a Court of Appeals, and pronounced a verdict in favor of the School District. In fine, the United States Supreme Court will rule that a school has a censorship power, which, it could fully and reasonably exercise against the freedom

I A. B. Cantwell v Connecticut (1940) D. Jesse Cantwell and his son going door to door in their neighborhood talking badly to people about the religion of catholicism which lead to two people becoming angry. This leads to the Cantwells being arrested for breaking a local ordinance that requires a permit for solicitation and also for encouraging an infraction of the peace E. Were the Cantwells first amendment free speech rights violated when they were religious views were suppressed and did they encourage an infraction of the peace or not. F.The court ruled that you could restrict general solicitation but you could not put limitation based on religion and that if you did so it would be trying to silence someone's views.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”. Some people in today’s time would argue the first amendment is one of the most important listed in the Bill of Rights. Many forms of speech are protected by the first amendment that one wouldn’t think would be such as flag burning and “adult videos”. Over the years there have been many different court cases that have debated and fought the forms of speech that are protected. Many people in society treat speech differently and this is given in the United States because there are such diverse groups throughout the nation.

The legal basis for the company’s action rests in section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Timmer, 2017). In other words, online intermediaries that host speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise bind them legally to what their users say and do. For Facebook, that means the freedom to either enable or restrain expression as it deems fit, and the company has increasingly steered towards the latter in recent years. Its current policies regarding hate speech include sweeping regulations against attacks based on “race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation and serious disability” (Mangan, 2017). Whereas some view this as a necessary measure to combat growing intolerance online, others argue that censorships often target the wrong groups due to the inadequacy of algorithms to assess

While students are said to be given the right of free speech by the first amendment, sometimes this right gets limited in certain circumstances. For example, in the Layshock v. Hermitage School District case, Justin Layshock made a profile on Myspace where he mocked his principal, inspiring the same actions from fellow students. Although he confessed to doing this, Layshock should not have been punished because the actions did not start at the school, but outside the building. Also, in this case, the school failed to make a connection to how the profile caused school disruption. In conclusion, suspending Layshock because of the profile and his speech violated his First Amendment rights.