Use three cases in your response.
Respond to two other comments.
Mr. Mills |
|
Is the freedom of speech properly applied?
Use three cases in your response. Respond to two other comments.
23 Comments
Sara Nodell
3/1/2012 07:05:39 am
I believe that the freedom of speech is for the most part, properly applied. Many cases involving freedom of speech set precedents for further ones and the courts stuck to them. For example, in Schenk VS United States, we see that Schenk is not protected because his speech was an example of what could be clear and present danger. Also, during war time, freedom of speech is allowed to be limited to better protect the people. The freedom of speech is also protected in cases that involve conflicting views and helps strike down laws that violate the freedom of speech. We see this is Black VS Virginia. Black was in charge of burning cross at a KKK assembly and used his freedom of symbolic speech to do so. He was fined and arrested for going against the law that prohibited burning crosses. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of black, and did not allow that law to exist because it threatened the freedom of symbolic speech and it did not allow for further evidence to be gathered. Lastly, we see that the government itself is checked in the cases involving speech. As seen in NY Times VS the United States Government, the court ruled in favor of the NY Times. The Times published the pentagon papers which were stolen from the white house which had top secret information on military strategies and other information about the war in Vietnam. The ruling was in favor of the Times and proved that even the federal government is strongly limited when it comes to censoring and stopping our speech.
Reply
Charlotte Juergens
3/1/2012 07:34:09 am
I agree with Sarah on this, especially with the point she makes in her last paragraph. Our country does a pretty good job at tackling a truly difficult task, balancing the importance of freedom of speech with the safety of individuals.
Reply
Susan Sasson
3/1/2012 10:23:27 am
I also agree with you. Our government does a good job of protecting our freedom of speech, even in times when it might seem undesirable. In other words, the government doesn't protect our speech in a cheap or partial way
Leah Kimball
3/1/2012 11:35:20 am
I agree with Sara. I think that the fact that all of these cases either already have or will serve as precedents for similar cases in the future, it is very important that the court makes wise decisions concerning all of them. I believe that the court is doing a very good job.
Reply
Jahanzeb Sarwar (zeek)
3/1/2012 07:26:08 am
Freedom of speech is not properly applied and it is being abused. In these three cases it shows how citizens have used different ways of speeches to intimidate or threaten something but they are getting away with it because they are twisting the words in the first amendment.
Reply
Susan Sasson
3/1/2012 10:27:59 am
I see what you you're saying, however there are those four restraints if anything is destructive and dangerous. The other thing that I wanted to point out, is that I believe the person who stole the pentagon papers had a different trial. The issue in the New York times v united states case, was not whether it was fair to steal the papers, but it had to do with was it fair to publish it.
Reply
Sami Ehmed
3/3/2012 05:27:49 pm
I agree with Susan when she says that "...restraints if anything is destructive and dangerous" Although it is unfortunate that there is no morally soothing way to have solved the situations of Skokie vs. The Nazi Party and Black vs. Virginia it was the proper decision to have made when concerning the tasks at hand, speech and how it can be expressed. To have prevented either of them would have been detrimental to real proper application of the right.
Charlotte Juergens
3/1/2012 07:56:34 am
Although Zeek's arguments make sense, I disagree with most of them. I really don't think that the nation's safety was jeopardized by the publishing of the Pentagon Papers, as those papers exposed military actions that had already happened. I think that, in the case of NY Times v. US, the court's ruling upheld the First Amendment right to freedom of the press, and that this is one of the best examples in our country's history of proper application of this right.
Reply
Leah Kimball
3/1/2012 11:41:59 am
I also believe that we've kept this country in reasonably good condition. I don't think the court needs to think about the intimidation issue anymore than it already does. Yes, the Nazis beliefs, for example, aren't the most pleasant, but unless there is clear evidence that they could possibly harm others, it is not fair for the court to step in. People should trust that if the court allowed something to happen, there is no threat involved no matter what the event and which group it involves.
Reply
Shantia Blackwell
3/1/2012 08:42:04 am
I think that in most of these cases freedom of speech is properly applied, only on the basis that the Constitution is so legally binding when it comes to individual rights that it makes it hard to make arguments for when a person's speech should be censured. The 1st Amendment gives a person the right to freely express their views and opinons, protest, and otherwise share their opinion and is generally accepted except when that person's speech shows a clear and present danger. I think the Supreme Court is right to uphold freedom of speech in most of these cases; a person should be allowed the right to speak regardless of whether or not people agree with what they are saying. If we were take away that one right, it would be hard to assure the people that their other rights wont be infringed upon. I think agree with Sara, with the idea that allowing one group to express their views opens the door for an opposing group to share their views as well--people get the same chance to voice their opinions so it doesn't really harm any one group because anyone has the chance to fight back with their own form of speech.
Reply
Leah Kimball
3/1/2012 11:32:31 am
I think that the freedom of speech is properly protected. I also think that the court does an excellent job of keeping the people's first amendment rights in tack. In the NY Times case, even though the papers were obtained illegally from the pentagon, the press most definitely had the right to inform the public of something it believed the public should be aware of. In the Chaplinsky case, it was wise of the court to rule against Chaplinsky because he did, in fact, express fighting words and endanger peace. The court usually makes the correct decisions on cases involving the first amendment. Which is a very good thing, especially because, like Sara said, all of these cases will eventually become precedents for future cases. Things get a bit tougher when dealing with cases involving issues that most people morally disagree with. The Skokie case is rather complicated; I would not approve of Nazis marching in a jewish neighborhood, but it would be wrong of me to deny them thier rights unless it was proven that they would disrupt the peace. The court has made great decisions in the past when determining cases that involve controversial groups. I do not think it is likely that the court will endanger the nation in order to protect people's right to free speech, if there is clear and present danger, the court will act properly.
Reply
Chrystal Wong
3/1/2012 12:00:22 pm
In a country where there is diversity within cultures, religions, people, there are bound to be conflicting viewpoints. Not everyone is going to see eye to eye with each other. Some arguments may be offensive and/or hurtful. It can cause feuds and potentially endanger others. That is where the government regulates and limits the freedom of speech. The government does their best in upholding the First Amendment rights of their people. They try to give everyone the chance to voice his/her beliefs. In many Supreme Court cases, we see that the freedom of speech is properly applied because the government considers the circumstances within each case regarding First Amendment rights.
Reply
Elsie Alvarez
3/1/2012 08:44:50 pm
I think freedom of speech is properly applied. Although the Supreme Court faced many controversial issues, they managed to make the decisions that would protect freedom of speech rather than restricting it.
Reply
Raye Holab
3/1/2012 10:45:11 pm
I agree with Sara. On the surface, many of these court decisions seem strange. After all, cross-burning was clearly being used as intimidation in Virginia v. Black. And the Nazi march through Skokie was potentially a threat to the community. But if the government had decided to go the other way in these cases-in other words, banning cross-burning and marches altogether-our right to free speech today would be severely limited. With Supreme Court cases in general, there seems to be a pattern of thinking about the future. The Court knows that all of its decisions will be used as precedents in the future; so even if a decision may not be perfect for the case at hand, it has to protect our rights in the future. The Court actually has enormous power in "legislating," and I think it's used that power wisely.
Reply
Sami Ehmed
3/3/2012 05:41:15 pm
I enjoyed reading this post because i agree with a lot of what Raye has to say and think that she raises some valid points. The Court i feel proves that it plays a key role by asserting its rights of Judicial Review. In my presentation for class i tried to get into the role of going against the US to protect Schenk and drew back to how the Alien and Sedition acts were wrong when they were passed in the late 1700s and argued that the Espionage and Sedition Acts were wrong too. I felt that under the decision made in Scheck vs US it was a reasonable considering the efforts of a nation and its strength is jeopardized differently with the draft and the pamphlets than revealing information about Vietnam was.
Reply
Susan Sasson
3/1/2012 11:38:23 pm
I think that the freedom of speech is properly applied. Although thee are some cases that I don't agree with morally, I do understand how the Supreme Court thought of it. In other words, the Supreme Court can't pick and choose what cases to grant freedom of speech. That being said, the Supreme court did establish limits when necessary. For example in Schenk v United States, Schenk was passing flyers about antidrafting. Although it is a freedom of expression to do so, it is during time of war and the court ruled "clear and present danger". It makes sense for the Supreme court to limit the freedom in this case.
Reply
Paula Cafiero
3/3/2012 11:18:25 am
I agree, I think that freedom of speech is properly applied in the Supreme Court cases. In Tinker vs. Des Moines which involved armbands in school protesting the war freedom of speech was appropriately applied. Students have the right to express their opinions wherever they are, but if it gets too disruptive then the principals have the right to prohibit it. In Skokie vs. the Nazi Party, I also believe they made the right decision. Just because it is immoral to all of us, does not mean it is immoral to them. It would be limiting freedom of speech, just because the government and most people do not agree with them. As long as they are not physically hurting someone, they have the rights to their opinions. The same goes for Black vs. Virginia, I also think that people have the right to their own actions as long as it is not meant to intimidate. Just because I personally cannot think of a situation involving a burning cross that is not intimidating, doesn’t mean there isn’t one. If it is not meant as intimidating, then people should have the right to do whatever. I think the Supreme Court has done its job in protecting the right to speak in all of its forms. They continue to ensure our free speech, even if the majority of people do not believe in what people are saying or doing.
Reply
Sami Ehmed
3/3/2012 05:55:55 pm
I wonder how much the barrier of government and rights relates to social situation during a war, because even though we assert more government rights during a war because it requires safety i feel like war will also have social aspects to it that lead the court to make "questionable" and hard to swallow decisions. Be it the Schenck case where he was punished for using speech but in a way that reached out to people to refuse the draft, something the government needed to fight in the war. As Charlotte mentioned the patriot act become strange anomalies of enforcement, no different was the internment of Japanese-Americans albeit the responsibility for each of these cannot fall on one institution its a rather interesting behavior we see.
Reply
Vladimir Abkin
3/4/2012 12:52:22 am
It is true that freedom of speech is rendered to every citizen, however application of that ability to a willing audience at a conditioned time and under justified circumstances is imperative for such liberties provisioned by the first amendment to remain constitutionally valid. Through out controversial intervals of this nation where there existed a breach in liberties, the supreme court was directed at trying to define the nature and form of expression/speech in regards to the scenario. In my perspective, the freedom of speech was applied properly in the cases examined, however I am sure there are cases where the circumstances were weighed and appraised without substantiality. And so as cases arise, the courts had to weigh, define and apply if limitations were necessary in cases such as Schenk, Stockie, Black, etc.
Reply
Emma Silva
3/4/2012 08:20:02 am
I do think that freedom of speech is properly applied in our country. While it's not completely protected, I believe that it is as protected as possible. In the case Virginia v. Black, Mr. Barry Black was convicted of violating a Virginia statute that banned burning crosses if done as an act of intimidation. The Court ruled that Mr. Black was not guilty, and his free speech was protected. I agree with the Court's decision because, like Paula said, it should be okay for people to burn a cross as long as they are not using it as a threat or a tool to intimidate. In the case of NY Times V. the United States Government, the NY Times published the pentagon papers. These papers revealed military strategies of the U.S. in the Vietnam War. The court ruled in favor of the NY Times. Like Sara said, this decision showed that it is very difficult for the government to censor, because our free speech is protected by the First Amendment. In Skokie vs. The Nationalist Socialist Party, a group of Nazis held a movement in an area where a lot of Jewish people lived. The Court allowed the movement, because their free speech was protected. While this was a very difficult decision for the Court to make, they did what they had to do in order to follow the Constitution. In all, our free speech is as protected as it possibly can be in this country. I believe that our government does a good job at staying true to the Constitution and the rights of Americans.
Reply
Dannielle Coleman
3/4/2012 12:37:28 pm
In my opinion, freedom of speech is properly applied. I agree with Susan that the Supreme Court cannot choose which cases to grant freedom of speech, therefore, to the best of their ability, they set limits when it was necessary.
Reply
Carla Sinclair
3/5/2012 12:53:13 am
The Freedom of Speech's use in society can be either used or abused. It is an extremely valuable right, and the Supreme court definitely applies it right in cases, but some people take advantage of it all while falling under the appropriate application. Free speech, as in just speech, should be allowed in all settings (as long as it isn't being disruptive) but usually it's speech-plus and symbolic speech that gets abused.
Reply
Ibrahim Ahmad
3/6/2012 10:13:41 am
I believe the freedom of speech is properly applied as it can be seen from a few cases. In the Case of Schenk vs the US, the freedom of speech was limited for an important reason. Schenk sent out leaflets which criticized the Gov't and protested against the draft while the U.S was at war. Not only did he do that, he also violated the Espionage act. The case established the idea that words that are clear and present danger can't be said. In the case of New york times vs the Gov't, the court ruled in favor of New york. The Gov't couldn't present a robust argument that showed the NY time's news presented a threat to national security. The Gov't used prior restraint, which was establish in this case, but failed to do so. In the case of Skokie vs. The Nationalist Socialist Party, Nazis wanted to celebrate their beliefs in an area filled with holocaust survivors. The Supreme court allowed the Nazis to revere their beliefs since it was peaceful parade and there was no intent for harm. Clearly, the Supreme court applied the freedom of speech in certain circumstances in these few cases. In the case of Schenk vs US there was a clear abuse of speech because of the potential domestic uprisings whereas in the other 2 cases mentioned above speech wasn't abused since it didn't have a severe impact that would dramatically affect the country as a whole.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Mr. Mills
Keep your comments related to the articles and American Government. Archives
March 2012
Categories |