Freedom Of Speech In Shannon Wheeler's Too Much Coffee Man

Shannon Wheeler's cartoon "Too Much Coffee Man" is a satirical look at, arguably, one of The United States of America's most famous freedoms, however it is also one of the most debated. It depicts our First Amendment right to freedom of speech and the conflicts that arise from this freedom. She illustrates this with two men, neither of whom will back down because of their right to freedom of speech. The two men represent different communities, such as state and local governments, schools and universities, private organizations, students and parents, and the general public that are continuously fighting for their right to free speech. In the cartoon, the two men go back and forth telling each other to "Shut Up" with no end in sight. The cartoon
In reality this is not the case, as seen in the multiple texts discussing the limits of freedom of speech. During these instances one community's freedom is being limited while the freedom of another community is being protected. Looking at Patti Waldmeir's column "Freedom of Speech and My Right to Silence at Bath Time" this situation becomes apparent. She explains the situation as "either way, it is a question of commercial free speech: advertisers have a right to broadcast their waves, but consumers have a right to refuse to listen" (591). Waldmeir is discussing the banning of commercial telemarketing calls and the formation of the do-not-call registry. The do-not-call registry will infringe upon the commercial speech of the telemarketers, but at the same time protect the rights of the consumer. The column is written to the consumer which is clear when one considers the title as well as the informative tone. Waldmeir uses ethos to appeal to her audience's values. She knows that the consumer values his/her right to peace and quite so she uses examples of this right being violated to gain her audiences trust. Waldmeir agrees with the consumers she's writing to, but she still understands the telemarketers rights as well, saying "we all share the same constitution; somehow, it must protect us all"
If the speech is a disruption to the education process, then the answer is no. In "Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser" the Supreme Court ruled that a student is not completely protected by The First Amendment; the limits being placed on lewd speech. In the case Fraser gave a lewd speech to an audience of his fellow students. The school argued that his speech disrupted the learning environment and therefore is not protected by freedom of speech. The Supreme Court gives the example of the Nation's legislative halls, noting that while "some of the most vigorous political debates in our society are carried on, there are rules prohibiting the use of expression offensive to other[s]" (585). Surely students can abide by the same rules as the people in charge of our country. Unlike the previous texts, Bethel v. Fraser is a case brief. Its intended audience is college educated individuals very familiar with legal issues. This is evident by the academic tone of the brief. The court case illustrates the necessary limits placed on free speech and why these limits are