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. 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 …show more content…
Words do not directly lead to violence, in fact words are often used to settle disputes in a more constructive way than violence. One’s inability to accept the views of another person is not the fault of the latter, but the former. Fighting words can be qualified as words that are not necessary to communication of information or opinions. The Fighting Words Doctrine allows the government to favoritize and discriminate citizens, which is exactly the opposite of what the First Amendment is all about. The First Amendment keeps the government from limiting speech, especially unpopular opinions because the views of the minority are just as important as the views of the
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’)
Every American citizen should serve on a jury because it allows new ideas into the verdict and it is fair to all Americans. In Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, Juror 11 says, “I have always thought a man was entitled to have unpopular opinion in this country. This is the reason why I came here. I wanted the right to disagree” (28). To allow all American citizens to serve on a jury, it would allow different views and ideas from other countries to be heard.
Words are the garb of people’s thoughts. Words can be very powerful and influential both in the society and among people, because whether or not someone choose the right words could change someone's life forever. Brilliant examples of power of words took shape in world’s history. A holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, who survived the concentration camp, wrote a book ‘Night’, as well as he introduced his acceptance speech to different people all around the world. He sought to restore the amicable and tolerate society where there is no place for such a word as ‘hate’.
Fuck: The Woes of Censorship “Somebody 'd written ‘Fuck you’ on the wall. It drove me damn near crazy.” This is a line from the classic novel The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger, which has been both praised as a contemporary masterpiece and banned from schools and libraries alike. If this book had never been censored, if it had been accepted for the story and realism within it, then it is possible that other works of art would not be censored today. Limiting expression has been done since leaders discovered that they could exercise such a power.
Lawrence III I believes that face-to-face confrontation should be counted as fighting words. (Timmons “Disputed Moral Issues”, pages 174-177). He describes that hate speech shouldn’t be considered under the first amendment because the person committing this act is not verbally speaking aloud to invite a discussion or rational argument but to instead “injure the victim”(Timmons “Disputed Moral Issues”, page 175). I believe in the idea of what Lawrence is conveying because when I take a utilitarian approach and try to weigh the benefits for human society I realize that fighting and violence don't amount to much forward progress and advancement. The fact being that no hate speech ever has amounted to any good in history.
However, many students raise the question of what is considered “acceptable speech.” Speech codes are designed to promote inclusion, tolerance, and respect for diversity. These codes and policies typically prohibit hate speech and speech that incites violence or intimidation. However, what happens when one student has a different definition of what they believe hate speech is? Supporters of speech codes point to the fact that hate crimes and incidents on college campuses have been on the rise in recent years and argue that speech codes and policies are an important tool for combating these incidents.
There’s an old saying that “sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you.” In reality, that saying is wrong. Words hurt a person as much as punch or a kick can. It may not hurt someone physically, but it can scar someone mentally and emotionally. Due to the topics they are associated with, certain words or phrases can elicit strong reactions; some are positive, while others are negative but nonetheless, they all leave an impact on people.
One of the major principles of the United States government has always been the freedom of speech given to its citizens, but what really comes with this freedom? Does this founding principle make it socially acceptable to create uncomfortable environments and use words to injure others? I think this right has limitations anywhere you go. Countries like Israel are making the word Nazi outlawed. And this isn’t because they’re trying to limit and control freedom of speech but rather because of its symbolic meaning in history.
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.
The Freshman 15 is a thought that crosses the minds of most future college students, but most say that it won’t happen to them. This fear of losing a toned body after graduating high school bothers some more than others. They realize after high school there are no longer athletics, and they’ll no longer be exercising regularly. Also, when they depart from their parents house and begin to live on their own their eating habits change.
Hate speech destroys the First Amendment because it doesn't allow a person to express their free speech. According to Lakoff, people who don’t experience hate speech, don't think
“You dummkopf- you idiot” (78). Hearing abusing language can hurt our feelings. Due to the fact, this word used into The Book Thief many people got affected which proves that words are the powerful weapon. Based on the book, I found out three major reasons why words are the powerful weapon and they are 1****, 2 *****and 3****8. Adolf Hitler was a dictator of Germany and he wanted to rule the whole world.
We can’t misuse the freedom of speech, saying words that can cause serious harm (bullying). This form of speech will cause depression, suicide, and stunted social development. When freedom of speech hurts others, then it is not just an opinion anymore; it is a form of hate
“The two most important things to do for self-defense are not to take a martial arts class or get a gun, but to think like the opposition and know where you 're most at risk.” (Barry Eisler) The strategies on how to think like the opposition in case of an attack are essential for students to learn at the high school level. Self-defense classes will be an effective way to teach students the skills, strategies, and knowledge needed so they can properly defend themselves and others in case of an attack. Doing this through high schools allow students to maintain their busy schedules as well as teaching them in a low risk and low-cost environment where they feel comfortable to express concerns and ask questions as they learn.
Bullying Can Be Prevented Bullying is a form of violence to pick on victims because they are different from their bullies, have insecurity/jealousy or home problems. The hate towards their victim has something to do with the victim having an unusual gift or being intelligent the bullies has yet to become. It is important that this behavior should be prevented or it will become worse. Bullying is one of the main issues public and private schools have to face on a day-to-day basis. When the bully takes it too far, the victim snaps and retaliates by fighting him/her back physically or verbally.