First Amendment Rights: The Westboro Baptist Church

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of “freedom of speech” Bill of Rights, n.d., p. 1). It was designed to guarantee a free exchange of ideas, even if the ideas are unpopular. One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech. Hate speech is a public expression of discrimination against a vulnerable group, based on “race, ethnicity, religion,” and sexual orientation (Karman, 2016, p. 3940). Under the First Amendment there is no exception to hate speech; although, hateful ideas are protected just as other ideas. However, the right to free speech is not absolute. The United State Supreme Court has ruled that the government can ban some speeches that contain “fighting words,” and words that

Hate speech—words or symbols targeted at a particular group or person that attack or intimidate them based upon sex, race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender—has recently become extremely controversial, especially in regards to college campuses. Although merely visual or verbal behaviors, hate speech can indirectly and directly cause physical and psychological harms. Philosophers Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic delve into the negative impact of hate speech in their essay “Words That Wound”, detailing exactly how supposed expressions of freedom of speech can detrimentally impact its victims. Such dire consequences thus call for targeted and threating speech to be banned in certain spaces in order to sustain a safe environment for the majority of people.

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.

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.

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”. A complaint was filed with the City Marshall. Following the filed complaint, the City Marshall warned Chaplinsky about disturbing the public but Chaplinsky continued to speak despite being given a warning. The police officer returned to the scene and Chaplinsky started to act erratically

Although the first amendment guarantee’s freedom of speech, the guarantee is not absolute. There should be an expectation to the first amendment. Another aspect of freedom of speech is expressive conduct (such as flag burning). The supreme court has grappled with whether laws banning expressive conduct are permissible under the first amendment. This court is in favor of Texas because, is it not right to burn a flag, with military people died to protect our flag, it is a symbol of freedom, and it will cause more problems in the world.

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.

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

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.

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

Snyder v. Phelps Summary of a First Amendment Landmark Supreme Court case: Snyder v. Phelps 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) (link is external) Facts: Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist Church believe that God punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly within the military. To demonstrate their beliefs, Phelps and his followers often picket at military funerals. Albert Snyder's son, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in the line of duty in Iraq in 2006. Westboro picketed Matthew Snyder's funeral displaying signs that stated, for instance, "God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," and "Don't Pray for the USA."

The Fourth Circuit contradicted the District Courts, concluding that Westboro’s statements were entitled to First Amendment protections on religious expression because those statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed

The idea of free speech on college campuses and the complications of it stem from those on campuses expressing views that don’t align with popular views. Implications for students who use the idea of free speech as a method for hateful actions and comments should be reprimanded, but the question remains as to whether schools should enforce tougher limitations. The freedom of speech on college campus expands to the freedoms of religion, assembly, press, and protest as well. Freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views. Removing freedoms of speech and expression have consequences deeper than surface issues.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution safeguards the right to freedom of religion and freedom of communication from government interference. Freedom of expression involves the constitutional right to the choice of speech, media, and meetings to request that the government pay for damages from complaints, and for the indirect rights of relationships and trust. Two sections in the First Amendment promise freedom of religion. The establishment clause bars the government from passing laws to create an official religion or favoring one religion over another. It imposes the "parting of church and state." Some legislative actions associated to religion has been acknowledged legitimate by the Supreme Court. For example, implementing

The article discusses how these are not crimes that are being committed, rather, these are crimes that are only being discussed. This raises the question of whether or not the United States is overcriminilizing speech. The article argues that in order for these crimes to seriously be considered as a criminal offense, the government needs to create an objective way of qualifying what is and