Columnist Response #2 Kathleen Parker’s op-ed, “So we’re banning words now? Here’s my list,” published December 19th, asserts that it is absurd for the government to ban words that are simply discomforting. Parker achieves this by giving a background on the recent banning of seven words by the US government and then offers her own list of words which she has has a problem with to show the ridiculous nature of trying to ban words. This op-ed argues that the government cannot ban words and that usage of “new” words in today’s society is detracting from the written English language. Parker achieves this with through a sarcastic tone targeted at a politically moderate, young adult, audience.…
production. Elaine is the lead manager on MIP and she is worried that the latest research results do not look…
School Board of Norfolk, 801 F.Supp. 1526 (E.D. Va. 1992). Here, a middle school student, Kimberly Broussard, wore a t-shirt that read “Drugs Suck”. Her parents sued on her behalf claiming that her shirt was a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States. Here, the courts ruled in favor of the school board, saying that although the shirt displayed an anti-drug message, the word “suck” was considered a vulgar word with a sexual connotation and therefore not allowed in school because it interfered with the classroom learning environment. Id. at…
First, society has an interest in protecting kids (especially those in the audience) from lewd , vulgar , and sexually explicit speech. Also, schools have a duty to teach student speakers the “habits and manners of civility” essential to democratic governance. Schools must teach students to responsibly consider the sensibilities of others, even when exercising their right to express unpopular viewpoints. Schools may reasonably conclude the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior cannot adequately be taught to students in an environment where the right to communicate in lewd, vulgar, and sexually explicit terms are absolute. Therefore, schools can constitutionally punish students for vulgar and lewd speech inconsistent with their educational…
It becomes very clear that the oppressor is trying to hurt the other’s feelings by creating an extremely harmful and concise message. Because curse words are looked down upon in society, when they are used in demeaning remarks, the intent and message become even clearer, furthering their ability to harm the…
"At the very heart of any understanding of Pompeii and its archaeology must be the demands of the tourist, who as Maiuri explained was the client of archaeology..."…
Despite the fact that the First Amendment protects offensive speech, the Supreme Court has created a category of unprotected speech that consists of “fighting words.” In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Court defined fighting words as “words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace.” The Court established that in order for the speaker's speech to fall under the fighting words doctrine the speech must be directed to an individual face-to-face and the words must have a tendency to cause the average person to respond with an immediate violent action. Fighting words are not subject to First Amendment protection because they don’t convey ideas and are not of social value.…
Throughout the world there are many different views on the use of swear words in everyday life. From evening family slot times to late night tv shows, cursing in society is slowly becoming part of our “normal” day to day language. Whether or not it is accepted is something different. Society has often labeled swearing one of two things: as an extreme type of language only used by the uneducated or the greatest use of power words that should be used by any and all people. Though swearing is offensive to many, it is proven to be a major extension of our vocabulary and should be tolerated and understood to a greater extent.…
This language restricts government’s ability to constrain the speech of citizens, however, the prohibition on abridgment of the freedom of speech is not absolute. Notwithstanding the often broad freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment, there are some historically rooted exceptions, as the Supreme Court has identified categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment and may be prohibited entirely. Among these categories are “fighting words” and words and actions that create an incitement of violence, both of which lay beyond the shield of First Amendment protection. I. Background In 1942, the United States Supreme Court established the “fighting words” doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, where the Court held that fighting words “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend…
My case is the one of fourteen year old James Ingraham vs. his middle school principle Willie J. Wright Jr. James’ parents are suing the Middle school their son attends (Charles R. Drew Junior High School) because they feel that their son was condemned to cruel and unusual punishment and has lost his liberty as a citizen of the United States. On October 6, 1970, Ingraham and another student were called into the principal’s office. James’ offense was failing to leave the school auditorium stage when instructed to do so by a teacher. Once in the principal’s office, James announced his innocence against the accusations of the teacher. Mr. Wright was unconvinced and ordered Ingram to bend over the table so that Wright could spank him using the discipline paddle. Ingraham refused to do so, and Wright began to force James’ head down on the table. The assistant Principal, Lemmie Deliford, assisted Wright by holding Ingraham’s legs. Wright then proceeded to strike Ingram with the paddle over 20 times, resulting in Ingram getting a hematoma. The hematoma resulted in Ingraham being hospitalized and requiring rest for eleven days.…
Should cussing be socially acceptable or should it remain offensive among present day society? In the article “Cuss Time” by author Jill McCorkle she proposes that cussing should be acceptable in moderation. The article speaks of how it restricts freedom of expression and takes away from thoughts. But that simply cannot be the case though as cuss words really don’t have a place in society now and have never had one before. Society should refrain from repulsive language as it is not acceptable in most environments, it hinders your linguistic ability, although some people argue that it has certain benefits.…
Name: Kaitlyn Boal [pic]EN 290 Introduction to Mass Media Exam I True /False: Please indicate whether the following statements are true or false (T/F) T 1.…
In the wake of school shootings, cracking down on potential threats has become priority. Not only are there threats of mass violence, but racist speech and sexist speech, that some would define as fighting words. A question to ask is when does speech become a fighting word. Having to decide what speech is protected by the first amendment, worthwhile, and what speech has no social value and is not protected, worthless, is controversial. Speech that is defined as worthless include: lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, and fighting words. Focusing on fighting words and the ever developing world of technology, we will examine a present-day situation of words that wound and compare them to past cases.…
The "Politically Correct" movement's purpose is to bring historically condescending terms, offensive music and art, and controversial educational content to an end and replace them with more positive and less-offending references. Offensive and demoralizing efforts are wrong, but the censorship and deletion of words and phrases that do not contain the intention to demoralize are taking political correctness too far. Politically correct (or "PC") antics have created a social decline that is growing worse with each generation, specifically regarding areas of art, education, language, and our right to freedom of speech; the degradation they have brought to the American psyche has even led to name-changing.…
In Jill McCorkles’s article “Cuss Time” she explains, “By limiting or denying freedom of speech and expression, we take away a lot of potential.” With saying this McCorkle backs up her argument with many different personal stories and experiences. The title “Cuss Time” comes from an experience between McCorkle and her son. When McCorkle saw her son “. . . silently mouthing a lot of new vocabulary while riding in the car or drawing,” she decided to let him have “Cuss Time” McCorkle explains for 5 minutes a day he was allowed to say any word he wanted, but when Cuss Time ended he wasn’t allowed to cuss till the next twenty four hour period when Cuss Time started again. Part of McCorkles’s reasoning was without cussing (Or other words society has viewed as wrong or bad) it limits our potential in how we express ourselves. Her last point that she addressed was if these words are taken away then more will be taken until it’s a dead language. “Word by word, our history will be rewritten if we don’t guard and protect it. . .). In this quote she basically says our language will be changed if we don’t stand up and take action on our Freedom of Speech. Throughout her essay McCorkle gives a strong argument to support her thesis and get her opinion across.…