1st Amendment Research Paper
Ambrunee: All the turmoil, yelling, screaming and arguing going on right now in our country is proof of how great of a country America is. In America, we truly have the freedom of speech.
The first amendment states - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Arielle: Freedom of speech can be limited when it breaks the state's compelling interest. For example, if a teacher begins to teach their own religion, it breaks a state’s compelling interest. The students can not walk out of school, unlike in a mall, where …show more content…
you may walk anywhere you please. In a classroom, the students are labeled as a ‘captive audience’. In Brandenburg Vs. Ohio, (1969) the court created a two pronged test to evaluate speech. It stated that freedom of speech can be limited if: 1. Speech is (Quote)“Directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action”(End Quote) and 2. (Quote)“Likely to incite or produce such action” (End Quote)
Leilani: Also if freedom of speech was not limited, people could say whatever they wanted, which sometimes may be offensive or obnoxious.
They could say things to incite harmful actions against others like screaming “FIRE” in a crowded theatre or allowing a student to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. They would not get in trouble because they would legally be permitted to express themselves. In the case Whitney vs. California the court found that freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st amendment is not an absolute right. In the case tinker vs.Des moines Yes, we should be allowed to say our mind, but at what cost? Some things you would prefer to keep to yourself, then share aloud. Though some things are cruel, we cannot limit opinions that are contrary to popular belief or unorthodox …show more content…
statements.
Kaytlin: In a situation where a speaker calls for violent actions, he should not be protected by the first amendment considering he is inciting violence. In the court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, a leader in the Klu Klux Klan spoke about vengeful actions towards the government and was convicted under Ohio Law. The Supreme Court made the decision that if the speech is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and it is likely to produce and incite said unlawful action . Carrying on this decision, it would conclude that if speech is likely to incite and produce unlawful action, then it is not protected under the first amendment. This case establishes the line on where the first amendment stops protecting your speech.
Celia: The speaker was only talking about it, whereas the spectator performed said action.
If somebody said everyone should hit women because they are a woman, and someone went out and did that. The aggressor would be charged with assault. The speaker was only stating an opinion and assuming he never hit anybody is at no legal prosecution. Being literal(person who did it) and figurative(The person speaking). In Brandenburg v. Ohio, A man named Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, asked a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964. Some of it was videotaped. In them, many people are burning crosses and calling for violence against African Americans and Jewish
people.
Delaney: The first amendment protects the freedom of speech and expression of the people. Everybody has the right to state their opinions freely as long as it does not go against one's freedom to leave and is not harmful. Though some things are cruel and unusual, they are not illegal and therefore we can not limit the free speech of those people
Noelani: In the end, we believe that the constitution does protect our basic right. We know that the constitution was created to limit the abilities of the government, and if they did something that goes against the constitution we can change the government. Like stated before, the constitution states that the government shall not, and will not, revoke the right to freedom of speech of…
We The People!
The first amendment states - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Arielle: Freedom of speech can be limited when it breaks the state's compelling interest. For example, if a teacher begins to teach their own religion, it breaks a state’s compelling interest. The students can not walk out of school, unlike in a mall, where …show more content…
you may walk anywhere you please. In a classroom, the students are labeled as a ‘captive audience’. In Brandenburg Vs. Ohio, (1969) the court created a two pronged test to evaluate speech. It stated that freedom of speech can be limited if: 1. Speech is (Quote)“Directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action”(End Quote) and 2. (Quote)“Likely to incite or produce such action” (End Quote)
Leilani: Also if freedom of speech was not limited, people could say whatever they wanted, which sometimes may be offensive or obnoxious.
They could say things to incite harmful actions against others like screaming “FIRE” in a crowded theatre or allowing a student to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. They would not get in trouble because they would legally be permitted to express themselves. In the case Whitney vs. California the court found that freedom of speech guaranteed by the 1st amendment is not an absolute right. In the case tinker vs.Des moines Yes, we should be allowed to say our mind, but at what cost? Some things you would prefer to keep to yourself, then share aloud. Though some things are cruel, we cannot limit opinions that are contrary to popular belief or unorthodox …show more content…
statements.
Kaytlin: In a situation where a speaker calls for violent actions, he should not be protected by the first amendment considering he is inciting violence. In the court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, a leader in the Klu Klux Klan spoke about vengeful actions towards the government and was convicted under Ohio Law. The Supreme Court made the decision that if the speech is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and it is likely to produce and incite said unlawful action . Carrying on this decision, it would conclude that if speech is likely to incite and produce unlawful action, then it is not protected under the first amendment. This case establishes the line on where the first amendment stops protecting your speech.
Celia: The speaker was only talking about it, whereas the spectator performed said action.
If somebody said everyone should hit women because they are a woman, and someone went out and did that. The aggressor would be charged with assault. The speaker was only stating an opinion and assuming he never hit anybody is at no legal prosecution. Being literal(person who did it) and figurative(The person speaking). In Brandenburg v. Ohio, A man named Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, asked a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964. Some of it was videotaped. In them, many people are burning crosses and calling for violence against African Americans and Jewish
people.
Delaney: The first amendment protects the freedom of speech and expression of the people. Everybody has the right to state their opinions freely as long as it does not go against one's freedom to leave and is not harmful. Though some things are cruel and unusual, they are not illegal and therefore we can not limit the free speech of those people
Noelani: In the end, we believe that the constitution does protect our basic right. We know that the constitution was created to limit the abilities of the government, and if they did something that goes against the constitution we can change the government. Like stated before, the constitution states that the government shall not, and will not, revoke the right to freedom of speech of…
We The People!