Why hateful speech hurts society

I thought the short discussion we had on hateful speech in class was the most interesting. I have always disliked hateful speech because of the rifts it can cause in society. I came across a couple articles online that I found interesting. The washingtonpost.com wrote a story on the Westboro Baptist church and their protests against military funerals.

The article reads that we as Americans tend to “wish for less of something that the First Amendment protects. Less hateful speech. One noisy protest group.” (Gene Policinski). One particular noisy protest group that has become a house hold name is the Westboro Baptist church. Their anti gay speech and military funeral protests have sparked controversy across the nation. The first amendment protects their “hateful speech” as the Supreme Court ruled. Robert Barnes a Washington Post Staff writes

“Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the Westboro Baptist Church’s picketing at fallen soldiers’ funerals ‘is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible.’ But he said the reaction may not be ‘punishing the speaker’. As a nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

So even though their speech is hurtful and some Americans probably wish that they could be stopped, the ruling shows that the Westboro church is able and free to continue their “hateful speech”. While their type of speech is not smiled upon, if we as a country limited their speech because we do not like it; who else’s speech would we be able to silence just because we do not like it?

            Gene Policinski of FirstAmendmentCenter.org writes after  the Boston Marathon Bombing “the just – released 2013 State of the First Amendment Survey by the First Amendment Center gives us reason to worry about the future because of a repeating threat to our core freedoms: fear.” The report showed that “In this year’s survey, conducted in May – about a month after the Boston Marathon bombing – 34% of Americans said the first Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees, up to 21 points from the 13% recorded in the 2012 survey.” 

            As in the example with the Westboro Baptist church we can not alter the first amendment to suit our needs for whatever circumstance we are facing. If America changes this Amendment every time there is a crisis, who is to say it will ever go back to normal? In the words Benjamin Franklin “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Snowden and Journalists Have a Lot in Common

This summer, information about the Edward Snowden CIA leak came in as hot news all across America. And as more detail emerged regarding the extent to which Snowden leaked serious government secrets, the world turned its focus to American surveillance and several nations, including our allies, and started questioning American motives and reasons behind the government's spying.

In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, and until 2013, the Pentagon Papers remained the largest US information leak in history. Speaking on Edward Snowden, the former CIA employee who released information about government phone and internet surveillance, Ellsberg says, "“I was overjoyed that finally an official with high or a former official with high access, good knowledge of the abusive system that he was revealing was ready to tell the truth at whatever cost to his own future safety, or his career, ready to give up his career, risk even prison to inform the American people.”

While Ellsberg has vehemently supported Snowden's decision to leak very important government intelligence information to the American public, the negative effects of his actions have been felt throughout the world. President Obama launched a huge search party once Snowden's whereabouts became unknown, and has since demanded Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to release Snowden to the fate of American hands. 

Snowden does not stand alone in his choice to reveal government secrets to the general public. Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst working in the US army, shared government secrets pertaining to army intelligence to the international, anti-secret organization, WikiLeaks. And much like Snowden, received backlash from the American government. He has received 35 years in prison for violating the privacy of the American government under the Espionage Act.

What the American public sometimes forgets when huge stories of "whistleblowers" hits the media, is that while the government can remain angry at the now very public, private information that was released, what Snowden, Manning, and even Ellsberg were doing was exercising their First Amendment rights. When these individuals are punished or publicly condemned, the government is essentially issuing a statement that discourages the public from their ability to practice their rights as American citizens. 

This could prove even more dangerous for journalists, practicing their right as public servants to gather information anonymously and to publish the truth. This has become evident through recent arrests and intense surveillance of CNN, Associated Press, and Fox News journalists. If Snowden is tried under the Espionage Act of 1917, what is there to stop newspapers such as The New York Times and Wall Street Journal from such trials when releasing important information for the benefit of public knowledge?

In recent years, there has been increasing government discouragement of honest journalism. Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning are two Americans who, perhaps through dishonorable means, released information about private government information to very public forums that led to an uproar of anger and confusion by the American public. But without them, and without the journalists who work to aid the general public, the government could get away with acts of censorship and oppression. Snowden is just one step along the path of this "war on journalism," and the silencing of journalists is not too far in the future.  

Fear of Expression

In Nuevo Laredo, Texas, Mexican drug cartel kidnappings are preventing one of the largest Spanish newspapers on the border from publishing information freely. The newspaper, El Mañana, developed a self-censorship policy after several attacks made reporters and the public no longer safe. El Mañana resisted the censorship policy for a long time, remaining undeterred even after the cartel murdered their editor, shot up their office, and attacked with homemade grenades twice. Soon after, however, something had to change and the newspaper began self-censoring their stories—no longer including bylines and omitting details as well as names and pictures of people being quoted. The censorship has changed the newspaper and disheartened the reporters and public, who officially feel the threat of the cartel on their freedom of expression.

This one instance highlights an issue that happens worldwide, every day. Fear of a higher power constantly puts an invisible filter on people’s speech and expression. No one can obviously blame El Mañana for instating their self-censorship policy, but in doing so they also relinquished a small amount of power to the cartel. Although they still publish stories on cartel violence from larger Mexican newspapers, they are no longer able to really tell their public what is happening—which is a right and obligation that all newspapers and journalists have.   

On a smaller scale, college newspapers can feel this imposing power on their speech as well. Unlike high school newspapers, college newspapers enjoy First Amendment rights and cannot be censored. This, however, does not mean that they don’t still feel the pressure of censorship. School authorities frequently attempt to impose censorship on college newspapers—especially when it comes to controversial material that could reflect poorly on the school. Threats to revoke funding or inflict other such consequences upon the newspaper sometimes ensure that writers are kept in line and that they don’t feel too much freedom of expression.

Working for the University News, I have already witnessed such hesitation from writers on a small level, and it makes me concerned that news everywhere has a slight veil of censorship. If our journalists and our news sources don’t give us the full, detailed truth, then how do we know what we’re missing? We might legally have a freedom of expression, but imposed fear can keep us from exercising this right.  

Gay Marraige - Interpretation of Constitution Reflects Changing Society

This summer the Supreme Court made two major rulings about gay marriage. First, it said that married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits and second; it officially allowed same-sex marriages in California after declining to decide a case there (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html?pagewanted=all). There now makes 13 states that allow same-sex marriage in America.

            One of the questions that surrounds gay marriage is whether or not it is protected by the Constitution, since the constitution protects privacy. In 2010, the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, which banned gay men and women from serving openly in the military, was ruled unconstitutional in California (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html). District Judge Virginia Phillips said that “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” violated the First and Fifth Amendments – the First Amendment protects us from Congress making a law that prohibits the freedom of expression and the Fifth Amendment protects us from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Phillips said, “The act [discriminated] based on the content of the speech being regulated.” It was believed that the act’s restriction of speech was broader than reasonably necessary to protect the government’s substantial interests, and it actually served as an impediment for military readiness and unit cohesion.

            One of the things that I have noticed about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights while taking this class is that they have wording that is general, since there was no way of predicting future issues when it was written, and so the way that they are interpreted seems to be in line with whatever the majority believes is right at that time period. I do not think this is necessarily bad, but it reflects the changes that are taking place in the world when something is ruled unconstitutional that was apparently not in conflict with the law in the past. Homosexuality is something that has been the focus of music, entertainment, and celebrity endorsement over the last several years increasingly. Since actors, musicians, and athletes are usually the leaders of our society, their pro-homosexual messages have had an influence on and reflected the way that society thinks about gay marriage issues.

Freedom of the Press: Broadcasting

As one of the five freedoms U.S. citizens are granted is the freedom of the press. This freedom is one of the fundamental aspects of our society. Without the freedom of the press, the fathers of our country would not have been able to state their opposition to Great Britain at the birth of our nation. In the past, these writers could not predict what technology would be like centuries after they had gone and what would be seen or heard by everyone with any device.

Limiting this right would bring us right back to square one. In the past, there has been several bills and written regulatory laws presented before the Supreme Court on the censorship of radio and television. It has been agreed that these two forms of broadcasting are much more readily available for anyone to stumble upon, including children. In the 1969 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC case, it was ruled that stations would have to allow equal time on their respected stations for opposing viewpoints whether it be between political viewpoints or other hot topic issues. This fell under the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine.

This “spectrum scarcity” was used in several more Supreme Court cases including FCC v. Pacifica Foundation where stand-up comedian George Carlin’s Filthy Words monologue that was broadcasted during an afternoon program was seen as obscene. Ultimately, it was ruled that the monologue was indecent and not obscene.

The “spectrum scarcity” no longer exists. Cable-only television networks are free to air uncensored content because the public availability is to a smaller audience rather that networks like basic television channels and radio station. The Fairness Doctrine has a much more limited power. During the hours of ten p.m. and six a.m. stations have a looser framework that the can work with. This grants them more airtime for shows with profanity and graphic materials.

There is still an unspoken code of limitations referred to as the “Stealth Fairness Doctrine” that tries to enforce stations’ broadcasting equal amount of time to opposing viewpoints. Christian stations even have an issue with this because if they were to preach about what they believe then bring on a different personality with different opinions would undermine their religion and free expression.

Most of my experience with broadcasting has been on the radio. Even though our station, KSLU, is not under an FCC sanction, we still follow it. Part of this is because of our university, but the station also wants to be taken seriously. Eventually, we hope to gain an on-air frequency instead of our current online-only status. I would prefer to speak what I want more freely and especially play artists in the form that they originally intended for people to listen to.

I do understand the regulation of television more. Some scenes on programs and in movies that are on-air can be violent and graphic. The shows that do air uncensored shows are the more critically acclaimed shows because they show the full emotion and message of the content in the show.

All in all, the FCC should be more limited in the control they possess over broadcasting. Our audiences can be to conservative and sensitive. The ten p.m. to six a.m. gives broadcasting a little wiggle room, but broadcasters should not have to worry about what they express or say for their own beliefs and those they are reporting or playing.

Equal Access Act

When public school students today want to form an after-school club, they are afforded the freedom to create almost any sort of club they want. The legal basis for this is the Equal Access Act. Passed in 1984, this act requires federally-funded schools to grant equal access to all extracurricular clubs. The act states that a school which provides an open forum for one club must do so for any other club, regardless of the political or religious views of its members. In the case of religion-based clubs and gay-straight alliances, opponents have claimed that the Equal Access Act is unconstitutional because it is not consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Despite the Equal Access Act, a student named Bridget Mergens from Omaha, NE was denied the right to start a Christian club at her school. Her school claimed that they had not created an open forum, and that all other clubs hosted in the school were related to various curricula. The school also argued that preventing a religious club was consistent with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Eventually, the case reached the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Bridget Mergens. It was decided that the other clubs held at the school were in fact non-curricular and thus the Christian club was allowed in the school. While some people may think that allowing religiously based clubs in public schools interferes with the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of religion, it is permissible when a student group creates the club and holds it outside of normal class periods. This is because the Equal Access Act serves an overall secular purpose by allowing the free and open discussion of religion and other potentially controversial topics. When the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bridget Mergens, it upheld the constitutionality of the Equal Access Act.

Recently, the Equal Access Act has been frequently used in debates over Gay-Straight Alliance clubs being formed in public schools. While many public schools have tried to put a stop to GSAs due to their potential divisiveness or to prevent disruption or protests by non-members, the Equal Access Act has been used to defend the rights of students forming clubs in schools. Even when other students created disruptions by protesting the GSA in Boyd County, KY, a federal judge ruled that since the GSA members themselves were not causing any disruption, the GSA must not be discriminated against by the school.

I am in favor of the Equal Access Act because it allows students to freely discuss anything that interests them. While I would be staunchly against a public school board or faculty member implementing a religious club, I wholly agree that all clubs should be allowed if they are founded by students and do not cause any type of objective harm to other students. Censoring student speech by discriminating against certain clubs is not constitutional.

It is interesting to read up on the Equal Access Act's particulars. At my public high school, our GSA was allowed to exist but not allowed to advertise its meetings. The principal's reasoning for this was that, in the past, other students had protested the GSA and caused problems for the school. As a member, I remember thinking this policy was unfair. Now I know that it violated the Equal Access Act, because the act requires that all clubs be given equal treatment. Since the other clubs at my high school were allowed to announce meetings on the PA system and pass out flyers, the GSA should have been able to as well. It is really surprising to find out that my school did the same thing that has begun many court cases. To me, this just goes to show that the Equal Access Act is very important and that more students should be informed about it.

Whistleblower or Traitor?

Earlier this year, Edward Snowden appeared at the forefront of American (and international) media. A former National SecurityAgency employee, Snowden illegally copied documents while on the job, then leaked NSA reports, files, and data concerning the Agency’s surveillance program to the British newspaper The Guardian.

The information Snowden leaked exposed numerous surveillance programs, including the collection of both American and European citizens’ telephone records.  Following the release of information by Snowden, scrutiny towards Uncle Sam’s “programs” began.  While wiretapping of telephones is legal for law enforcement agencies, wiretapping phones of American citizens requires a warrant.  Snowden’s leaks illuminated the illegal surveillance of telephone calls by the NSA. 

However, since Snowden violated terms of the NSA’s security policy, thus breaking government laws by stealing classified information and distributing it, he is wanted on accounts of espionage and stealing.  Currently, Snowden resides in Russia, where he was granted temporary asylum.

Back in the States, people can’t decide whether to hail Snowden as a ‘hero’ or ‘traitor’.  According to the laws, Snowden is guilty of both counts, however, should he be punished for using his Constitutional rights? Under the First Amendment, Snowden’s speech is protected from governmental repression.  Should “whistleblowers” like Snowden be allowed to expose governmental policies that encroach on American citizen’s privacy without being subjected to criminal repercussions? I’m somewhat at a loss in this debate. While I believe the U.S. government should use necessary means to monitor potential threats both abroad and at home, the wiretapping of telephones certainly limits the amount of privacy to each individual. There’s always the question regarding the slippery slope; if we allow the government to monitor our phone calls, will they want to monitor our Internet, TV, or other electronic communication means in the near future?

Snowden exposed abuses of power by the government, but should he have allowed the newspaper to publish the documents? I’m inclined to think that his methods weren’t flawless; I’m positive U.S. intelligence programs were hurt because enemies know our monitoring processes.  I think that Snowden could have sought other means of calling attention within the NSA to the breach of privacy laws without publishing anything. Only as the last resort, should the smallest amount of information possible be released.

Did Snowden simply break US laws, or is the US government trying to repress his freedom 
of speech?  

"I (Heart) Boobies"

I have always been a proponent of the idea that meaning is subjective. The receivers of any message must take into consideration its context, like who sent it, the sender’s intention, or the culture in which the message existed. But when those who are meant to interpret messages must make sweeping judgments based on principal versus context, it’s inevitable that misconstructions will occur.

In the case of Brianna Hawk and Kayla Martinez, their attempt to spread awareness about the nation-wide pandemic of Breast Cancer spurred an extensive litigation from their school district. The two girls wore bracelets with the slogan “I (heart) Boobies) on it, which the school claimed was lewd. So lewd, in fact, that it caused a disruption “with sexual undertones” in the school environment and warranted suspension.

With help from the American Civil Liberties Union, the girls contested the suspension. Although the attempt to regulate the bracelets usage was intended to keep a placid school environment, it was infringing on the students right to peacefully express their interests.

The District solicitor, John Freund, stated: “Middle school is a witch's brew of hormones and curiosity”… the bracelets are "cause-based marketing energized by sexual double-entendres." I was shocked when I read this, because anyone who’s ever played the “that’s-what-she-said” game knows that anything can be considered a double-entendre. To what extend would the school district be willing to take this argument?

Eventually, the 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals found the bracelets to not be sexual in nature. At a majority vote of 9-5, it was not a clear and unanimous decision in favor of the students, but it did supply a ruling that in this case, the girls should have been praised for the encouragement of awareness rather than reprimanded. ACLU Lawyer Mary Catherine roper stated, “…that’s the kind of speech we want to protect and promote”.

Similar to the “Bong Hits for Jesus” controversy of 2002, there is a lot at stake in school environments, and it is the administrations responsibility to keep the environment safe and conducive to learning. But in this quest, school districts cannot simply cast away the first amendment rights of it’s students.

            

Free of Speech is a Double-Edged Sword

      The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that Congress can make no law abridging the freedom of press and speech. "An overwhelming majority (73%) of Americans believe it is better to allow free speech without government interference over letting government decide what types of hate speech should be banned" (http://fmwg.presstools.org/node/34398). With that being said I found the discussion about freedom of speech and hate groups very interesting. I have a very strong opinion when it comes to groups who are out there to intentionally try to hurt people. Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind because of their recent protesting of soldiers funerals.  "The Westboro Baptist Church, led by Fred Phelps and consisting almost exclusively of his extended family, routinely protests at military funerals and in other forums that the church strategically chooses to increase media exposure for its message.  That message is rooted in their belief that God hates America for its tolerance of homosexuality" (https://acluva.org/7388/on-hate-speech-the-westboro-baptist-church-campuses-and-nazis-in-virginia/). In my opinion, the First Amendment should not protect their hateful signs and protests, but if you ban one hate group where does it end. Just because the majority of the country thinks a group should be silenced does not make it right. As much as I would like to see them silenced, it would bring the lawmakers down a slippery slope because there is not one thing that defines the term "hate" or "hate groups". 

       There is no way to sum up hate speech in one category, it may be hateful, but for some people even if it is just a small minority they have the right to speak what they believe in. If we place restrictions upon hate speech we are essentially telling others they are wrong for expressing it verbally. Yes, there are people who speak insensitive narrow-minded comments, but who are we to judge them for having an opinion? I strongly disagree with what they believe in and the tactics they go about expressing it, but if I believed in something that most people did not agree with, I would not want to be silenced for it.  If we ban one type of speech then we would not know what other kind of speech would be banned as well.


     Even though I am strongly against groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, no one should have the authority to define "hate" speech. That would go against the beliefs of what the founding fathers created with the First Amendment. Any type of speech could be then labeled as hateful if such restrictions were put into place.

"Student’s Arrest for Controversial Rap Challenges Free Speech"

Cameron D’Ambrosio, a high school student from Massachusetts posted a rap that he wrote on YouTube. In his rap, D’Ambrosio referenced the White House and the Boston Marathon bombing, saying, ‘Everybody, you will see what I am going to do: kill people.” These lyrics lead to his arrest and he was charged with terrorism with a 20 year sentence and a possible fine of up to $10,000.

I deem those charges and this entire situation ridiculous for a number of reasons. For starters, I can’t even count the number of rap songs that I have heard that mention some kind of violence, threat, or weaponry in some way. Secondly, I believe that this was all just based on the fact that timeliness did not play in his favor. The Boston Marathon bombings had occurred not too long before he wrote his rap, and I feel like this had a lot to do with the reason this event even came to light. Had D’Ambrosio posted that song on YouTube today, I don’t believe that he would have been charged at all. Lastly, it does not seem like there are no limits as to what people post on YouTube nowadays, so why was his video singled out? After all, isn’t YouTube a website that allows and encourages free speech?

I don’t mean to sound insensitive about the tragic incident that happened in Boston, I am just saying that we do not know the reasons for D’ Ambrosio’s rap, so therefore, who are we to tell him what to say or what not to say? The main issue in this context is that his rights were denied. The Massachusetts statute that was used to arrest D’Ambrosio, states that you need to mention specific weapons and specific people or a location, as Hutchinson says in the article. Therefore, I would agree with Hutchinson who believes that D’Ambrio’s right to free speech has been violated  and he should not have been charged, unless everyone else who has ever publically rapped about killing someone also gets charged. Hutchison says, “As much as I disagree with the video, the more you censor stuff, even if it’s stuff like this, that’ll just allow for [censorship] to be more acceptable, and anything can be censored.” I completely agree with this statement. What becomes of the first amendment then if everything is censored?

<380 word count>

What is Free Speech on Social Media?

In 1791, when our forefathers were laying out the Bill of Rights they couldn't begin to imagine the United States that exists today. They couldn't provide instructions for the multitude of inventions that have graced our lives. With each new invention, therefore, we have had to do our best to adapt these rights and regulations to the changing times. It’s a process that takes time and is constantly evolving so, though it may not seem new anymore, social media is one of those inventions still up for debate.  

Exactly what our rights are when utilizing the various social media platforms we have access to is an evolving process. The resignation of Twitter’s best-known free speech advocate alongside its IPO has raised some questions about the platform’s future. Will the platform heralded for its free speech potential and role in the Arab Spring start bending to business concerns and become more regulated? (Twitter has already acknowledged protocol for withholding some tweets in some countries.) Or will it continue to be the platform of anything goes that we see today?

Meanwhile the relationship between Facebook and free speech is still being decided in court. Just Wednesday, a federal appellate court ruled that liking a political candidate’s Facebook page is equivalent to a “digital yard sign” and should be protected as free speech. The case, Bland v. Roberts, was decided in favor of the plaintiffs who argued that they were not reappointed to their jobs simply because they had supported the losing candidate on Facebook.

So what is the role of free speech in social media? We live in a world where it isn’t uncommon to be fired for Facebook activity deemed inappropriate by your employer (such as the teacher who was fired after a picture of her with alcohol on a summer trip to Europe was spotted by a parent). If a Facebook “like” is protected, why isn’t a Facebook photo? Can we expect to twitter to continue to protect controversial tweets of citizens when they have powerful governments and businesses pressuring for removal? The protection of free speech on social media isn’t truly a protected right and it will be a long time, I imagine, before what social media content is protected free speech and what is not is set. 

Same sex marriage and the benefits they should receive.

In a recent ruling on the matter of same-sex marriage and the benefits the family is entitled to was ruled in favor of the plaintiff Tracey Cooper Harris a couple days ago. The LGBT case was the first case to declare that benefits must be provided to a married veteran no matter the sex of the veteran's spouse. (SPLC). The reason this case seemed so interesting to me was not for the veteran aspect of it but for more of the same-sex marriage aspects. Besides the obvious reasons to marry: love, stability, commitment and just about any other relationship worthy adjective that comes hand-in-hand with marriage; entering a marriage has serious monetary benefits from joint income tax returns to medical and employment benefits all the way to Social Security, Medicare and disability benefits for spouses… and THAT is where I shall begin my discussion.

If a same-sex couple were contributing, and paying citizens, just as much as a opposite-sex couple were, they should be allowed the same rights. The United States should not be worried about trying to take away benefits and rights from their veterans; rather, they should be assisting them in any way possible.

Realizing that this may be a bit off topic, it still falls within the First Amendment and those who are against same-sex marriage generally are because of religious reasons. Freedom of religion, to me, is the same as freedom of speech. You are choosing to pray to whom you want and you are choosing to express your beliefs in whichever house of worship you seem fitting.  Understanding that this argument against same-sex marriage, at its most basic of levels, is because people feel that God created holy matrimony to be shared between a man and a woman. Due to the persuasion of the church, government officials have thus manipulated the First Amendment and made it so that it transgresses a religious system that should not be used to govern over individuals who do not feel the church (Christian) had the right to disallow their marriage.

Snyder vs. Phelps

What I have found to be most striking in class thus far is the disparity between final rulings on freedom of speech issues.  The verdict in the case of Snyder vs. Phelps was particularly thought provoking.   Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder was only 20 years old the day he died March 3, 2006.   Parents Albert and Lee Snyder mourned the death of their young son while members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed his funeral with signs reading, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Hates Your Tears.”  Albert Snyder, father of the late soldier, decided to take action.  Snyder took his case to the Supreme Court suing the members of the fundamentalist Westboro Baptist Church for $5 million dollars for “intentional infliction of emotional distress”.  Freedom of speech is one of the most essential aspects of American liberty however, use of hate speech causes Americans to more closely examine exactly what type of speech the first amendments protects and whether or not some speech violates the law. 

 Although the content of speech generally cannot be limited, the government has the ability to regulate some aspects of free speech.  The law protects the American people by limiting the volume and location of protestors.  For example, law professor William Rich of Washburn University notes, “Judges have drawn a line between picketing of a home (which may be constrained), and general neighborhood picketing on public streets and sidewalks (which remains protected by the First Amendment)”.  Issues of speech that most people view as intolerable naturally instill the desire to amend freedom of speech in order to limit hatred.  However, by making exceptions we would be allowing the government to discern what is acceptable and unacceptable speech.  This is an extremely subjective distinction, allowing the government to regulate speech could effectively endanger the collective liberty of the American people.  Allowing the government to discern what speech violates the law would cause even more issues regarding free speech than there are today.   

In the case of Snyder vs. Phelps, Snyder won.  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf  Snyder’s lawyers argued that the funeral was not a public event and that protestors were exploiting the private grief of a private person.   Lawyers also claimed that Snyder was a victim of emotional terrorism and that protestors caused him physical health problems such as depression and aggravation of diabetes.  Many freedom of speech cases do not end up with this type of verdict and I am torn as to which side I support.  My natural inclination is of course to applaud the court on their final decision however, silencing the speech of even one group deters from the open marketplace of ideas we have discussed in class.  

Confessing your sins on YouTube - an expression of self or evidence for legal purposes?

It is easy to decide whether you like a color or dislike a specific type of food. We as human beings like making sense of things and keeping things in order. As much as we like to establish order in our society, there is no such thing as a clear, distinguishable line between what is right and what is wrong. Also, as Americans, we have grown to love the freedom of expressing ourselves, especially when it comes to voicing our own opinion. The more wrapped our lives become in cyberspace, the more the grey area grows. Personal experiences diversify among each person, ideas and thoughts are created from exposure to certain people or events, and we all make pass judgment based on what we know. It’s easy to judge people especially when you haven’t been in their shoes. For instance, murder. No one in his or her right mind would kill senselessly. Or would they? The Bible proclaims, “Thou Shall Not Kill,” establishing the black and white understanding of murder. However, what if you accidently killed someone? Is it possible?

Matthew Cordle, a 22-year-old man from Ohio, released an almost four minute long video on YouTube confessing of accidentally murdering a man while driving drunk. His face was blurred out and voice was altered until the moment he confessed, then there was a “crystal clear image of his face.” The video went viral within hours. The video consisted of his retelling of the night when he had too much to drink and drove down the wrong way on the interstate, accidentally hitting and killing a 61-year-old veteran. As a result of the video, authorities were alerted and they immediately apprehended Cordle and arrested him. Now, he is appearing in court, and faces “a maximum sentence of 8 1/2 years in prison for open count of aggravated vehicular homicide and one count of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs” (Rosenbaum, NBC news). All of this was because he posted a confession on YouTube.

It makes complete sense to arrest Cordle based on his confession. However, does it seem legal to arrest someone based on a confession that was posted online? YouTube is one of the biggest communities where people share videos of various things. A personal opinion, or in this case, a confession may be one way of expressing yourself, but posting it online for all to see, when does that no longer become a personal expression of self? Is using YouTube and other social media outlets as a way to express yourself? If yes, then is it just for authorities to use these postings as evidence against any crime you might have committed?

Dress Codes and Students' First Amendment Rights

A fashion trend of our generation has become baggy pants. Walking down the street you could probably pass several people and wonder to yourself just how are their pants staying up. Baggy pants have become a topic of conversion for school officials. There have been debates across the country, including one in a western Pennsylvania school district (http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/03/17/local-principal-takes-stand-against-saggy-pants/), to add wearing baggy pants as violation of the dress code and the assessed punishment. Restrictions on what public school students wear to school have become a controversial First Amendment issue.

Many supporters of school uniforms or dress codes claim that such clothing policies instill discipline, prevent gang-related violence, lessen peer pressure due to socioeconomic divisions, and promote school unity (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/clothing-dress-codes-uniforms). While opponents claim that with such clothing policies in place, students’ individuality and personal freedom are restricted.

Recently in St. Louis, Alderman Marlene Davis of the 19^th Ward has gone even a step farther to propose a ban on people wearing “pants below the waist which exposes the skin or undergarments” in public (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-alderman-seeks-to-ban-sagging-pants/article_3a0ab5a5-9411-566f-bcfb-0223b11120cd.html).  As you can imagine, Alderman Davis has many opponents both in the public and on the Alderman Board.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), has ironically been cited by both supporters and opponents of school dress codes (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/clothing-dress-codes-uniforms). As we briefly discussed in class, the Tinker case was centered on censorship of student expression in public schools. Petitioners John Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and Mary Beth Tinker were sent home from school and suspended for wearing a black armband to school in opposition of the Vietnam War (http://www.nesl.edu/research/rsguides/Anthony_Scibetta.html).

The Supreme Court ruled that school officials could not censor student expression unless they could “forecast that the student expression would cause substantial disruption” (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/clothing-dress-codes-uniforms).  Supporters of school dress code will point to another part of the Court’s ruling. The Court ruled that this decision does not pertain to regulations on “the length of skirts or the type of clothing, to hairstyle or deportment” (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=393&invol=503).  The Tinker case was the first dress code case ruled by the Supreme Court.

Growing up I went to parochial, Catholic grade school and high school. I wore a uniform to school everyday until I came to college. For me wearing a uniform was never a problem; it actually made my life easier. Other students at my high school would be reprimanded for the length of their skirts and the “bagginess” of their pants. These students would get upset with the teachers as they handed out uniform demerits. But at a private school, we didn’t necessarily have complete freedom to express ourselves. We were able to express our individuality through our hairstyles and the accessories we wore.

I believe that dress codes are beneficial to students. School administrators and teachers strive to create a positive and nurturing learning environment. Distracting clothing can inhibit the learning process. I don’t believe having a list of clothing guidelines violates students’ First Amendment rights. There are plenty of other ways to express one’s individuality through what one wears. The main purpose of attending school is to learn, not to make a fashion statement.

I do strongly oppose Adlerman Davis’ proposed bill. In public, everyone has the right to wear whatever he or she chooses, even if they choose to wear the socially unacceptable baggy pants.

What Freedom of Speech means to me.

Many of our class periods have left me thinking about our constitutional rights as American citizens. One class period, however, struck me more than usual and still has me thinking weeks later. That conversation would be the one when we discussed the statistics on what common citizens know about our constitutional rights. It blew my mind at the percentage of people that could not even name a single right that we have protected by the first amendment. There are five options…and 40 percent of the country knew zero (according to the First Amendment Center survey results, http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/sofa). These are some of the simplest, yet most important freedoms that we have as Americans, and the majority of people could not even recognize that.

Freedom of speech is something that I am very fortunate to have. I do not take it for granted, and feel very lucky that I was raised in a society where it is okay to hold my own opinion. This is a lot of what makes people individuals. Maybe it is because I consider myself an amateur journalist, but I cannot imagine living in a place where I could be oppressed for trying to be myself and speak my mind. I just wish more Americans would recognize the amazing freedoms we are given in this country because many people around the globe are not as lucky as us.

After thinking about how many citizens in this country take our freedoms for granted, my thought process led me to begin unraveling what each of the five freedoms of the first amendment meant to me. Freedom of speech was the one that stuck with me for the longest amount of time. What exactly is freedom of speech in America? I believe that it is one of the most instrumental freedoms we possess. I know that in many parts of the world, they are not blessed with this freedom. I know that this is what allows me to hold opinions without being terrified that I will be tortured because of them. But then why is there such a gray area as to what speech is protected by law?

 Obviously, the first amendment states the following: “Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.” (www.uscourts.gov) However, in the past, this has not always proven to be exact. There have been times where congress has passed a law limiting certain ways of speech for the betterment of the common good. In fact, there was a period of history where freedom of speech was never upheld in the Supreme Court, even though it was considered a constitutional right. It seems a little unsettling to me that the court system can kind of decide what kind of speech is protected by the Constitution on a case-to-case basis. Think about it – what if the judges are in a bad mood on the day they have to decide the fate of a student trying to speak their mind? Could that have an influence?

Before 1920, the Supreme Court had yet to decide in favor of free speech. Some politicians of the time found this appalling, which resulted in the creation of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, www.aclu.org). Although the ACLU today works to defend many more of our rights than just freedom of speech, it reassures me that there are people in our country that are working for the people. There are people in the U.S. that work to make sure our Supreme Court is upholding the laws appropriately.

It still bothers me (and probably always will) that close to half the citizens in our country couldn’t name a single right they have protected by the first amendment. The freedoms we have, especially freedom of speech, have always been something I’ve been grateful for and have, in a way, fueled my life. Knowing that I have protected rights have made me not only feel safe, but also proud to call myself an inspiring journalist. Would I have the confidence to speak out in such a public matter if I was afraid of government oppression? Absolutely not. Freedom of speech and the first amendment rights are merely one reason I am proud to be an American, I simply wish more people in the U.S. saw the importance in the same way I do.

Students' Right to Free Expression

The American student’s right to free expression is very limited in comparison with that freedom guaranteed to Americans as citizens. This is quite surprising considering that students are expected to learn the freedoms guaranteed in America, and yet cannot enjoy them. It is surprising that students would be stunted as a whole in this fashion, considering students are expected to grow into mature adults. Lastly, it is surprising that students as a group are marginalized in this way, considering they are just as much citizens of the United States as anyone else.

In discussing the issue of licensing, John Milton’s Areopagitica explains that the limiting of people’s free expression can lead to the discouragement of learning (Kozlowski, “Our English Heritage Part II). Not only does the ability to express oneself help shape beliefs and values, it assists in providing a better education. Free expression encourages an inquisitive nature, and therefore encourages more answers. It makes no sense that one of the main reasons given for the right to freedom of expression is the ability to learn and otherwise achieve fulfillment, however those in the process of attaining an education do not wholly possess this right.

Students are citizens, too. Although students are in a submissive position, these limitations send the message that students are not as much a citizen as a non-student. Schools often use the fear of drugs or other dangers to justify the absence of certain freedoms in school, however students do not “shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/your-right-free-expression). This was the case in Morse v. Frederick, when Joseph Frederick held a sign reading, “Bong hits 4 Jesus.” Although Frederick had not been to school and although he was across the street, his limited rights as a student resulted in his suspension being ruled constitutional. The Court based this decision on the fact that his sign encouraged drug use (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20533070). Students came a long way after Tinker v. Des Moines, but backtracked in the face of Morse v. Frederick. In order to facilitate a productive educational environment and give students an appreciation for their citizenship, students should have a more comprehensive right to freedom of expression. This right can be intimidating at times, and children should have the ability to acquire better use of it earlier on.

A federal shield law is necessary to ensure the survival of investigative journalism.

Last Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Free Flow of Information Act. The bill will go before the full Senate sometime later this Month. The bill provides protection for “reporter privilege” — which, legally speaking, will protect journalists against the government requiring them to reveal confidential sources or the information those sources provide  (http://www.spj.org/shieldlaw-faq.asp). In recent months, the idea of “reporter privilege” has come to the forefront as a result of the Associated Press’ phones being tapped by the federal government and Fox News’ James Rosen being served a warrant concerning a confidential source which disclosed that North Korea was going to test a nuclear bomb.

I believe that there will be great advantages to enacting the proposed shield law, as well as some challenges. The bill has a broad definition of who qualifies as a journalist. According to the bill, a journalist is some with an “employment relationship” for one year within the past 20 years, or three months within the past five years, and someone with a “substantial track record” of freelancing in the past five years (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-12/world/41994597_1_media-shield-law-press-freedom-confidential-sources). This definition gives many people protection including possibly former reporters and unethical journalists.  

However, the bill does have limits in that it would not protect journalists in, “classified leak cases when information would prevent or mitigate an act of terrorism or harm to national security.” (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-12/world/41994597_1_media-shield-law-press-freedom-confidential-sources). I believe that while that limitation is politically necessary and in our security interests the broad “harm to national security” clause could be tested very quickly by cases involving leakers (such as “Scooter” Libby)( http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ex-vp-dick-cheney-outraged-president-bush-didn-grant-scooter-libby-full-pardon-article-1.370889) as well as potential whistleblowers. While there are a number of imperfections, the bill is a great first step to ensure some measure of journalistic freedom for years to come. As Senator Chuck Schumer said, “This legislation ensures that tough investigative journalism that holds government accountable will be able to thrive.”

One element of the bill that I am personally excited with is the protection for college journalists. College journalists have not received much protection as journalists, but this bill provides them greater protection than they currently have at the moment (http://www.splc.org/news/newsflash.asp?id=2607). This law would allow student journalists a greater opportunity to do hard investigative journalism of their institutions to ensure they are acting lawfully and in the best interests of their stakeholders (student, faculty and other staff). I hope this leads to more investigative journalism at public and private institutions.

I pray that legislators can move past the partisan gridlock and actually pass this bill. If passed, it would be a great victory for all political points of view as it will protect free speech and a free press by allowing more parties to be heard and protected.       

The Consequences of Banning Images

The line between freedom of speech and impinging upon another’s freedom is an ambiguous boundary. However, Charles Hayne’s Ban on “gruesome images” threatens free speech found at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/ban-on-gruesome-images-threatens-free-speech and The Thomas More Society’s U.S. Supreme Court Petitioned to Reverse Colorado Ban on Graphic Images of Abortion found at https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/2013/03/06/u-s-supreme-court-petitioned-to-reverse-colorado-ban-on-graphic-images-of-abortion/ expose the court’s frightening ruling that vastly oversteps this parameter and the Supreme Court’s dismissal to rehear the case. Starting with a brief review of the events surrounding the court’s decision, the following will attempt to demonstrate the danger of the court’s decision to restrict the freedom of expression by analyzing the consequences of such an action: the disappearance of places to practice free speech, the beginning of a domino effect to absolute government controlled speech, termination of the exchange and spread of knowledge and thus growth of our nation, and the muting of all voices outside the mainstream.

The affair began with an anti-abortion protest that ensued on a public sidewalk near a pro-choice church in Denver. The marchers displayed graphic pictures of the atrocities of aborted fetuses. These images were visible to the parishioners, which included children. Charges were brought against the protesters and won. The appeals court ruled that censoring the speech of anti-abortion protesters is justified because the state has the responsibility to protect children from these disturbing images of mutilated fetuses. 

Although the state’s interest in protecting children is understandable, there is danger in prohibiting free expression in public places just because children may be distraught by the message. If the government can subdue any speech that a court may think worries parents, or that the court believes is disturbing to children then the government would have extensive jurisdiction over public speech. In addition, if the government restricted all expression in regions where children might be present, there would be no places for unregulated free discussion. Without a domain to use free speech, the practice would perish. The First Amendment can’t oscillate whenever some people believe a certain type of speech is offensive.  A constraint on one form of free speech is a restriction on all free speech. So all speech must be permitted. It is the duty of government to protect this right and it is the job of parents to determine what their children can handle and to help them deal with the realities of the world.

Secondly, the government’s restriction of the gruesome images is frightening because this is from the same legal system that sanctions the brutal event. This ruling seems to lead to a slippery slope of undesired consequences. Next, could be the prohibition of publications of other inhumane government endorsements, such as mal treatment of prisoners, the torture of animals, illegal political operations, and other unjust actions. With the government’s suppression on speech the public would remain ignorant to these atrocities and the government could do as it pleased.   

The importance of the First Amendment is that it protects unpopular and deviant speech. These aberrant voices are the ones in need of safeguarding, for they are imperative for truth to transpire and for the growth of our nation. The abortion illustrations represent this valuable faction that encourages people to rethink and solidify their values and actions. The horrid images are compelling because they poignantly express the message of the protest, which is to stop the brutality of abortion. The images capture more than words could attempt to describe. The prohibition of gruesome pictures to protest abortion prevents the communication of an important message and the exchange of knowledge and ideas. This constraint is not only unconstitutional but also debilitating to the well being of our nation.

The horrific occurrence of fetuses being aborted is nearly invisible to the public. The fetuses are unseen while developing in the womb, and then after they are aborted, they are quickly disposed. The pictures give a voice to the voiceless and show the unnoticed horrid results of this ruthless procedure. There are many other instances throughout history in which photos have been imperative to changing policy to protect people’s rights. For instance, photos of lynching victims brought attention to an event many tried to ignore. The nationally publicized photos of the mutilated body of Emmet Till, a black boy murdered in the south, received a public uproar.  Another example is the circulation of images of Holocaust victims that portrayed the terror of Nazism in a way words could not express. Finally, Time magazine portrayed the ruthlessly marred body of an Afghan woman in an attempt to enlighten readers of the Taliban’s brutality toward women. Pictures are one of the only tools capable of representing the helpless. Without this ability the exploited become imperceptible.  

In conclusion, there is great danger in the consequences of restricting the freedom of speech: the elimination of areas to exercise free speech, the start of a domino effect to unlimited government regulated speech, discontinuation of the new ideas, and the silencing of all speech outside the dominant beliefs. The court’s ruling that confines free speech and the Supreme Court’s dismissal to rehear the case adamantly calls for redress. For if an exception to free speech protection were permitted for churches or places where children were present, it would be a slippery slope to the beginning of the end of free expression.