First Amendment Limitations

If a natural disaster strikes my area and the power is out for weeks, one of the limitations would be that the people would not feel that safe. Security wouldn't be enforced and since there is no security, there could be several possibilities of theft. Another limitation would be searches for any and everything. Both of these limitations should be practiced, so even if there is a national disaster we could be ready. The 4th amendment can be used as an explanation of how the limits

There have been many supreme and district court cases that involve the first amendment. Your First Amendment rights are a heavily debated topic. Students, in particular, walk a very fine line regard to their free speech. Schools, students, and the federal government are still trying to figure out where they stand. Within this essay there are three main topics that I wish to cover; they are as follows Dress Code, Student Free Speech, and Internet Use. Every case within these topics is argued with the First Amendment in hand, though not all of them conclude the same. I hope you enjoy educating yourself on this tedious topic!

As Holmes had stated there are other forms that are not protected which are known as lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, and insulting words. The case Chaplinsky v New Hampshire in 1942 determined that fighting words and other forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky had argued that the New Hampshire law violated his Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits states from infringing on citizens’ fundamental freedoms and as a result, kept him from exercising his First Amendment rights of free speech. While states are not allowed to inhibit expression of ideas, the Court did not convict him for the expression of his ideas but because his words (calling religion a ‘racket’ and a city marshal ‘damned racketeer’ and ‘damned fascist’)

Chapter 4 of the book We the People talks about Civil Liberties, this chapter mainly talks about the Rights that were placed in the Constitution (not in the Bill of Rights), it also talks about the Bill of Rights and it describes the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It also talks about specific rights that work close together with the Bill of Rights and Amendments rights. One of the first Amendments that is described in great detail is Freedom of Speech and Religion. The first Amendment protects US citizens right to talk about almost any topic in the United States. I said almost any topic because there are some forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment (these forms of speech can be limited or prohibited), some of the forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment are Fighting Words and Hate Speech, Student Speech, Libel and Slander speech. These forms of speech aren’t protected by the First Amendment because they can help to incite people

On the face of a cenotaph a tile quivers—delicately but ominously, as if an earthquake were approaching. It quivers again, rocking back and forth more perceptibly, soon escalating into a spasmodic motion. Suddenly, the tile falls, plunging swiftly downwards and shattering out of existence as it hits the ground.

On the sidewalks of Rochester in the year 1942, Walter Chaplinsky was arrested for repeating 'You are a God damned racketeer' and 'a damned Fascist’ to a police officer. Chaplinsky’s statements violated a New Hampshire law prohibiting offensive, derisive, or annoying words or sounds said unto an individual or party in a public place. He appealed the decision of the District Court, and when it came to the Supreme Court, they came to a profound decision. Supreme Court Justice Murphy said there are certain words that could reasonably result in a fight or a breach of peace when uttered. 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.

Arguments over the First Amendment and its guarantee of a freedom of speech and expression have existed since the dawn of the country, and although these discussions often happen as a result of a major policy changes or violent events involving both sides of the political spectrum, I personally feel as if the amendment should be looked in another light. Just as Ben Shapiro explores in his article titled “The End of the First Amendment,” the crisis that we are facing about our First Amendment results from the individual actors on the debate stage. Both sides are at fault here, where in some locations liberals are the one to blame and other places, conservatives. Arguments should be intellectually stimulating and conducted as a way to not only

When the founding fathers established the government of America, it is clear that they had the intent of establishing a government that valued principles such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and had a strong separation of powers. This is clear when we read the Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, and the Constitution. But does our current government value those same principles? I am going to argue that, no, it does not. If the intent of the founders was followed today, the government would be neither neglecting the First and Fourth Amendments, nor slowly degrading the separation of powers to the extent it has in the past 100 years.

First Amendment rights are guaranteed to all American citizens, but current free speech issues are testing Constitutional boundaries. Where must the line be drawn between free speech and infringement upon others’ rights? Is there some speech so cruel and so appalling that it does not merit protection? These issues have been raised by the recent activities of the Westboro Baptist Church. Based out of Topeka, Kansas[1], this small group of radicals is marked by their hateful views and their contempt for homosexuality. The Westboro Baptist Church has gained notoriety and sparked national outrage with their offensive acts, particularly by protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers. However, despite the distasteful nature of the Church’s

While the freedom of speech is protected under the constitution, there are several types of speech that are restricted by the government. In general, if the speech is found to cause harm or threaten the safety of the public, it is restricted. According to Oliver Wendell Holmes, “a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent.” (Volokh, E., 2015). There are restrictions placed on fighting words, defamation, threats, and false statements of

The first amendment is a constitutional right inherited by every American citizen, but how far is it truly reaching? At school, it has always been a wonder to me about the rights we students have amongst our peers. While some students use the first amendment inappropriately at school, a student has the right to voice their opinion under the protection of the first amendment. This is because, as decided by the Supreme Court, students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Oyez, 1) therefore giving us this, some-what, shield of protection.

A further consideration that must be taken into account while evaluating this case is that of time, place, and manner restrictions. Such restrictions are a sort of measuring stick when it comes to these types of freedom of speech issues. If a group or individual does not comply with time, place, and manner restrictions, their actions are no longer protected by the First Amendment. Meanwhile, if these restrictions are adhered to, a party has the constitutional right to voice their viewpoints. Time, place, and manner are “considerations that could act as restrictions on what would ordinarily be First Amendment-protected expression. Such restrictions do not target speech based on content, and in order to stand up in court, they must be applied

On its face, the first amendment free speech clause of the Constitution is straightforward and unqualified, providing that, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Despite this, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that various categories of speech fall wholly outside of first amendment protection and thus merit proper censorship in appropriate cases. Among such restricted categories of expression are: advocacy intended, and likely, to incite imminent lawless action; obscenity, child pornography, true threats, defamation, fraud, and finally “fighting words”.

First Amendment gives the freedom of religion, speech and press. People cannot prevent from saying what they think or feel. They have the right to say what is in their mind. However when we talk about schools this freedom cannot be applied. Schools are the place where students still under education. Administrators must clearly define the role of the media advisor when it comes to censorship and freedom. Of course it doesn’t mean that to involve every step of the students’ newspaper. Principal should give responsibility to them, however we should review the news before publishing publicly as an editor. They are responsible of the school and should take precaution before anyone can be

If one is a “single vision” scholar of the Aristotelian school, then he looks for the telos of things – that is, the purpose of something or the end towards which it aims. Of course, such pursuits are premised on the foundational idea that all things have both such singular purposes and that we can discern them. By the same token, if one is a “single vision” scholar of the Enlightenment school, then he looks for the ways – scientific and social – that the world can be explained in some comprehensive and intelligible way. Yet again, if one is a “single vision” scholar of the Democratic Governance school, then he or she looks for all the ways by which government, in all its diverse aspects, can be reconciled with that overriding idea. In the