The Freedom of Speech and First Amendment: Analytical Essay

2017 was considered an important year for the freedom of speech and first amendment advocates. News outlets and social media all over the nation would mainly speak about white nationals’ rallies. the take a knee movement was born sparking controversy all around the country if not the world. college campuses were not the exception. across the country they were at the center of the debate. For several months we heard the same story repeatedly in the news and social media.

On October 19, 2017 white nationalist Richard spencer was scheduled to speak at the Philips Center for the Performing Arts in Florida where he was received by opponents who chanted “say loud, say it clear, Nazis are not welcomed here. [1] Florida governor Rick Scott was forced to declare a state of emergency due to violent protests that were taking place on campus and to increase law enforcement presence so as to control the protesting crowds and avoid further violent incidents.

When events like this take place, the circumstances are usually identical: violent demonstrations erupt as the result of an individual bringing a polemical conversation to a school campus, sometimes getting shut down and sometimes resulting in rage and uproar from those who do not agree with the views being shared. This draws a divisive line among people who want to limit controversial debates, and those who believe that everyone is free to express views and perspectives freely despite how extreme they may be, which begs the question, what exactly does freedom of speech means? Is it protected by the first amendment of the United States of America’s Constitution.

The first amendment shields everyone from being punished for speaking up for what they believe. it gives every individual the power to stand up and protest in a peaceful manner and to speak against anyone including the president congress and schools without being retaliated on. our founding fathers believed this to be fundamental to democracy and I believe they were absolutely right. Without freedom of speech the civil rights would have never existed. Without freedom of speech there wouldn’t be women’s right to vote movements and unfortunately our society would not be the society we have today. However, freedom of speech only applies to the government itself and to legal and public entities which are places that are funded with our tax dollars as well as schools police departments libraries courthouses post offices and college and university campuses. private companies and communities on the other hand are free to censor an individual in any form they choose. For example, ESPN is free to fire a sports anchor for saying something that goes against company policies, but that anchor cannot be arrested for what he or she may have said. Another scenario would be the NFL. They could make a rule banning players from kneeling, but they could not get arrested if they chose to do so.

Although we live in a free country which promotes and encourages individual to express and live freely there are certain limits to it. there are actions that are not covered under the first amendment. Blackmail threats, solicitation of a crime, inciting violence, lying under oath and violations of copyright are examples of actions that do not fall under the safeguard of the first amendment. but the question in this case is: is hate speech protected? Some people argue that school campuses, colleges and universities are places where diversity and learning needs to be welcomed and for this reason there should be no place for hate. But in reality, when a speaker is addressing a crowd for the most part hate speech is and should continue to be protected. a speaker can say racist homophobic or mean-spirited words about a certain group or groups of individuals based on their culture sexual preference nationality etc., and this would not be considered illegal and he or she could not be arrested. the opposite would happen if the speaker incites and intentionally provokes a crowd to commit a crime. for example, a KKK leader has the right to speak degrading and humiliating words about different races or individuals. this action would not be considered a crime. what would be illegal is if this individual pointed out another person or groups of people and asked the crowd to attack that person or group and the crows actually does it.

It’s not difficult to speak against hate speech. some argue that it is unnecessary offensive and can cause damage to the public its intended for. but there is a good reason why it must be protected. Nor government nor any governmental entity should have the power to decide what would be considered hateful and what would not. One example would be President Trump banning NBC’s Saturday Night Live’s skits just because he considers them offensive to himself. Nobody, not even the president should have that kind of power.

Public universities are public entities because they are funded by U.S. tax dollars meaning that no public college or university should deny any speaker from expressing their views regardless of how extreme we think they may be. On April 18, 2017 Auburn University tried to get white nationalist Richard Spencer to stop speaking on campus but a federal judge ruled that this action was a violation of his constitutional first amendment rights. [2] Things are different and more complicated when students or public safety is involved. On September 2017, the university of California Berkeley spent over six hundred thousand dollars when conservative speaker Ben Shapiro gave a speech there. [3] This was to cover personal security costs and to provide enough security through campus to avoid highly anticipated violent protests. but should universities just use the threat of violence to prevent speakers from expressing their views even when they do not agree and if arrangements need to be made in order to keep them safe who should bear the cost I join free speech advocates when I say that a university must do everything in its power to allow and protect speakers regardless of the message they are trying to share. One of the most outspoken advocates for freedom of speech is Robert Reich, an economist and professor at Berkeley who is known for his liberal views. He has participated several times in different news broadcasts advocating for individuals he openly disagrees with the most. At one interview at the news broadcaster ABC, dated April 30, 2017 he said “I tell my students that the best way to learn about something is to talk to people who disagree with you because that forces you to sharpen your views and test your views. A university of all places is the locus where we want to have provocative views. [4]

Do we really want administrators and officials deciding what or who is offensive and who’s not? if a liberal campus decides to ban white supremacist spencer could a conservative campus decide to ban Colin Kaepernick or Hillary Clinton? We must know and be aware that censorship goes both ways. If we give up that right, we are giving up a big portion of our freedom.

Freedom of Speech: North America Vs Latin America

The proper to free discourse is one of the keys and most major rights every inhabitant of the North America has. This is focal right considering the truth that it offers people with such an important risk to talk uninhibitedly their contemplations concerning any circumstance, character or undertaking. In the course of world history, this best used to be as fast as baffled commonly, anyway at present, it assists with improving individuals’ lives and decidedly sway on numerous things. These days, the appropriate assists with protecting individuals’ own one of a kind perspective in fight, as equivalent as it used to be when in pilgrim times. Nowadays, if there should arise an occurrence of a harmony fight, people can make their voice to be heard lawfully, while, in the instances of pioneers, dissents usually had been brought about disciplines. There is no doubt about whether or no longer these rights should exist or not, the altogether inquiry appropriate right here is whether their wants as far as possible or not.

The right to speak freely of discourse shields everybody from the impact of explicit interests. At the point when individuals have power, at that point the person in question accomplish something they can save it for whatever length of time that conceivable. That may furthermore epitomize a substitute in the administration’s constitution, or the concealment of a minority bunch that compromises the method for presence for the individuals in question. Having the right to speak freely lessens this vitality because of reality it allows in men and women to unmitigated analysis of these who are in power. There is no concern of shedding non-open opportunity with this privilege because of the reality your supposition adds to the standard discussion.

The right to speak freely of discourse takes out constrained activities. At the point when people could speak freely, the specialists can’t force individuals strikes so that you are required to impart a message. Individuals keep on being in oversee of what the person state and how these expressions are communicated to the remainder of society. Regardless of whether the administration attempts to adjust individuals’ expressions to further their potential benefit, individuals consistently should address the circumstance and right the ‘botches’ that others make in your work. As of late, free discourse has gone under investigation. Numerous individuals are asking whether free discourse is hurtful to other people, and if there are times when discourse ought to be edited to secure people, gatherings of individuals, or the United States government. In the United States, free discourse alludes to the First Amendment Rights in the Constitution.

To delineate, opportunity of articulation is ensured under the US Constitution’s First Amendment: which denies laws that compress free discourse, the opportunity of the press and the option to calmly collect. Anyway, occasions lately, especially under the organization of Donald Trump have raised profound concerns. National security is utilized progressively to legitimize free discourse and security limitations with overbroad reconnaissance powers undermining insurances for informants, activists and writers. Criminal arraignment of whistleblowers in the US undermines government straightforwardness. The capture and detainment of Bradley Manning, a Wikileaks source, sentenced under the Espionage Act in 2013, yet discharged by Barack Obama in 2017, and the progressing body of evidence against Edward Snowdon undermine the privilege to opportunity of data. With elevating political pressures, the option to dissent has gone under assault in the US where quiet fights have drawn unnecessary power from police. While the US has a generally free press, boisterous ambushes against autonomous news sources undermine press opportunity.

Latin America don’t get the best treatment with regards to freedom of speech. I’m getting it’s an indication of danger to a great many people particularly to columnist. In any case, in the region of free discourse the lawful leftovers of tyranny frequently endured long after majority rule government was reestablished. Under chronologically erroneous hatred laws, for instance, writers and others in numerous nations gambled prison time while communicating conclusions condemning of open authorities or establishments. Against this background, between American human rights framework made out of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has assumed a basic job in moving back the remnants of tyranny in Latin American lawful codes and consequently solidifying the change to law-based types of government.

In the course of recent years, I looked into an article that states, columnists and common society advocates have effectively appealed to the Inter-American Commission and Court to strike down legal choices that limited free discourse, likewise the laws on which they were based. For instance, when Costa Rican columnist Mauricio H. Ulloa was indicted for criminal slander for investigating affirmed demonstrations of debasement, the Inter-American Court upset his conviction. At the point when the proprietor of a Peruvian television channel was deprived of his nationality and authority over his station after it publicized reports on defilement and human rights manhandles, the Inter-American Court requested Peru to reestablish his privileges. To add on, when a Chilean natural association was denied government data about a logging venture, the Inter-American Court requested Chile to turn over the data and reinforce its entrance to data laws and techniques.

Taking everything into account, anyone that is from North America or Latin America has the correct to the right to speak freely of discourse in certain circumstances where there are results. Individuals have the correct opportunity to discourse there however observe how to express the situation and when to state the situation. There is no issue with talking the brain. Columnist ought to be treated with deference like some other individual. Viciousness to a writer isn’t right and presumably multiple times out of 10 of those individuals are terrify each day for what the person in question are suspecting. The right to speak freely of discourse is the correct to communicate one’s sentiments aside from being punished. Despite the fact that there are opportunity explicit universal areas on the planet in any case do never again have the rich of this essential human right. A fundamental difficulty that the right to speak freely of discourse faces is the point at which it clashes with other human rights, for example, situations when abhor discourse is seen as the right to speak freely of discourse. At the point when an individual or a venture business undertaking has the ideal of the right to speak freely, at that point they can explicit any sentiment aside from restriction or oversight.

Freedom to Speak, Freedom to Discern

America prides itself on being the ‘Land of the Free’; however, as strange online activity and conspiracy mongering enter the public spotlight, the kind of freedom we so cherish must be decided. Are we entitled to a freedom to speak however we would like, or entitled to a freedom to be sheltered from harmful and false ways of thinking? As national security relies on governmental attention to threats of violence in the modern Age of Information, the question arises: are Americans free to believe whatever they want to believe? Should federal agents be responsible for shutting down dangerous ideologies online, or does the freedom of speech extend to even preposterous belief systems? The FBI’s labeling of conspiracy mongering as a domestic terror threat calls into question the extent to which citizens enjoy their First Amendment rights.

As Keller writes in his article, ‘Is a Conspiracy Theory Protected Speech?’, in the last fifty years “the outer limit of free speech in America has been defined by violence”. The famous case, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), resulted in governmental authority being limited to silencing speech only if there is a ‘clear and present danger’ of both causing imminent lawless deeds and being likely to do so as well (Meyers-Bass, Chapter 3 slide 12). This ‘clear and present danger’ has recently been extended to referencing fringe conspiracy theories online, and, according to the FBI, “anti-government, identity-based, and fringe political conspiracy theories that very likely encourage the targeting of specific people, places and organizations” are categorizable as domestic terror threats.

Specifically, the QAnon and Pizzagate conspiracy theories are drawn into question. QAnon is a theory that claims an anonymous government official, Q, is leading a secret campaign to stop a group on nonpolitical elites from controlling the government, while Pizzagate accuses elite Democratic leaders of involvement in the sexual exploitation of children in a D.C. pizza parlor. Both theories instate President Trump as a savior figure, and contain an element of internet-fueled extremism. The FBI states that these kinds of theories often motivated high-profile violent acts, therefore qualifying them as defamation incidents. Although general public opinion seems to support that conspiracy theories are not necessarily protected by the First Amendment, it remains unclear to what extent the government can prohibit such speech. Even if the online messages present an intent to incite some kind of violence, the likelihood and probability are almost impossible to prove. The question remains: should these conspiracy theories be allowed to circulate online and propagate harmful and ‘untrue’ messages?

According to four legal professors who focus on First Amendment issues, “false speech does not serve the public interest the way that true speech does and indeed, there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact” (Feuer 2018). This raises the question: who do we trust to define truth? According to scholar Deborah Appleman, “history is an impression of the past rather than a record” (Appleman 99). This in no way disqualifies facts as a legitimate source of truth, but rather calls into question the validity of any power structure that rushes to silence preposterous accusers. If these accusations are indeed preposterous, then the counter-evidence should prove so to any reasonable citizen. Defining ‘false speech’ and then criminalizing it grants governmental authorities the power to decide what is real and what is false, to choose who gets to criticize and who must be silenced. Truth should speak for itself. In accordance with the New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) case, which “prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to their official conduct unless they prove the statement was made with ‘actual malice’” (Meyers-Bass Chapter 4 slide 11). This offers protection to individuals who choose to criticize the government, which remains one of the core reasons the First Amendment exists at all. The ‘actual malice’ may appear in some of these theories; however, their online nature and their inconsistent results make the follow up imminence and likelihood impossible to predict.

Although outrageous theories and mindsets are understandably the cause of some unrest, the forces that would go into silencing those voices are more disturbing than the voices themselves. Possibly a more productive way to counter these conspiracy theories would be a more localized confrontation of news agencies that choose to give press to internet trolls and conspiracy theorists. According to Alan Feuer, the lack of media literacy in many mainstream reporters renders their coverage of online incidents misguided and harmful. If individual news organization choose to focus more on what is true than on what the minority of absurd individuals believe, the need to stamp out these theories would fade in the light of concrete facts and evidence. If these facts and evidences are not enough to reassure reasonable citizens of wrongdoing in the government, silencing perhaps the more ridiculous opinions would do nothing to reassure the public. On the contrary, it would assure the average citizen that to question authority can and will result in legal action.

If Americans are entitled to think for themselves, they should be trusted to consider ridiculous theories and concrete facts and come to their own conclusions. Although we must carefully consider where our First Amendment rights end and where violence begins, we must also call into question the act of silencing any facet of opposition. This silencing in itself is a form of violence.

The Threat to Freedom of Speech

All people around the world practice free speech daily, but not all people have the privilege of doing it publicly. Even though there is freedom of speech in many western countries, other countries in the world still do not have the luxury of this basic right, but now we may be in danger of losing this right after fighting long and hard for it.

After centuries of Americans fighting and dying for the right of free speech, a generation of young adults is now being taught not to believe in the freedom of speech because it is seen as uncivilized. How will mankind ever advance if people across the world aren’t sharing new ideas or discoveries? Instead, this generation thinks that they should have freedom from the speech that they dislike or find offensive. This is highly common in Russia and China where the country’s sensitivity-based censorship platform bans anything unpleasant or hateful, it even bans criticism of any type of religion. Imagine living in a society where you could never say or post your feelings without getting punished. The United States is not new to the rising trend of people going against freedom of speech, or today what is now called ‘political corrections’. This is particularly occurring at American universities and colleges. Highly restricted speech code is now the new norm on college campuses. According to a study by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or in other words, ‘FIRE’ 54% of public universities and 59% of private universities currently impose politically correct speech codes for students.

How bad is it?, you might ask. On March 6, 2019, a conservative activist reported named Hayden Williams was attacked while recruiting students for Turning Point USA at the University of California-Berkeley. The man who did it never got accused of assault. Of course, the First Amendment does have its limitation where we’re not allowed to harm others to get what we want. That’s why we’re not allowed to use speech for force, fraud, or defamation. FIRE took these universities and colleges to court for reasons like this. After having won these court cases FIRE proved that the right to free speech is a basic human right, but the fact that they had too, shows us how bad the threat to freedom of speech has escalated.

The latest threat to our Constitution’s First Amendment comes from something called “Trigger warnings which are alerts that warn students that they are about to read or hear something that triggers a negative emotional response”, – says Greg Lukianoff. Also, conservatives against the First Amendment encourage microaggression, which is defined as “Any statement that might be constructed as racially insensitive, sexist, classist, otherwise non- PG” according to Greg Lukianoff. Campuses are policing students on what they should and shouldn’t say.

Other Americans criticized FIRE’s viewpoint by saying that the First Amendment needs to be repealed because it’s outdated and a threat to liberty and privacy. Paul Denlinger CEO and founder of China Bridge Marketing makes a critical observation: “a free-society is not necessarily a healthy society”. Paul Denlinger also said, “Too much free speech causes distraction, superstition, rumor-mongering and lost productivity”.

Why Is the First Amendment Important: Opinion Essay

It is February 14, 2018. At Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, three thousand students trudge into the building. They believe it will be just like any other day. It isn’t.

At 2:19 p.m., Nikolas Cruz, carrying a rifle case, is dropped off by an Uber driver in front of the school. At 2:22 p.m., gunshots are fired. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting, better known as the Parkland massacre, becomes the deadliest high school shooting in United States history.

In the midst of this tragedy, the students rose up. The March for Our Lives, to demand more gun control, became one of the most attended protests in the country, attracting over two million people. Yet despite these students, as well as millions of others, believing guns were the problem, another group took an opposing stand. Kyle Kashuv, a student who survived the very same shooting, is an advocate for gun rights, alongside the NRA and most of the Republican Party. How is it that a fairly homogeneous group of teenagers, experiencing the same tragic event, can have such different perspectives?

The answer, in large measure, lies in the First Amendment, which safeguards freedom of speech for all US constituents. In the 21st century, with the advent of the Internet and social networking sites such as Twitter and Instagram, freedom of speech reaches all corners of the globe. On every issue imaginable, users present their ideas, attitudes, and values as if they are the absolute truth. It is precisely this abundance of information from various perspectives that serves as a double-edged sword: to raise awareness in favor of, or against, movements and groups.

Although freedom of speech allowed the Parkland groups to speak their minds and continue the discourse about gun control in America, it also gave their critics a voice. Headlines such as ‘The Problem with March For Our Lives’ along with denunciation from television hosts like Laura Ingraham and reporters such as Eric Erickson peppered the media for months, drawing support and retaliation alike. However, despite the furor from all sides, the First Amendment empowered the students to keep speaking out.

The First Amendment provides constitutional protection for almost every form of expression. This protection enables the unfettered spread of information without fear of being arrested, executed, or otherwise punished by the government. For the average American, it facilitates the development of opinions on various matters. However, developing one’s own opinions on political, social, or economic affairs often requires more than reading those of others. The First Amendment supports this effort as well, by legalizing discussion of issues between people in any setting, strengthening and authenticating the power of debate. On high school and college campuses, where the students of today are the leaders of tomorrow, the free flow of information is especially important. Young people like Jeremy can interact with individuals from different backgrounds and ethnic groups, such as peers, teachers, speakers, supervisors, and others. This encourages everyone involved to have a conversation about topics that affect them.

In the words of former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, “Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate”. Debate pushes the limits of every doctrine, dogma, and ideology, and in doing so, encourages the development of attitudes, values, and morals. This, similarly, translates to individuals. Debate allows people to form views and then discuss them with others, modifying and augmenting them as they continue to defend their position. Therefore, freedom of speech and the ability to debate usher in change, develop viewpoints, and promote understanding. It was through debate that our Constitution was written, and our country based on democratic principles was founded. The Founding Fathers recognized this and sought to enshrine our natural, unalienable right to freedom of speech in the First Amendment.

High school and college students are not an exception to these rights, as shown in Tinker v. Des Moines, in which the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate”. As high schools and colleges are microcosms of the real world, the opinions of students on campus mirror the thoughts and behaviors of young adults, the future of our country. Therefore, freedom of speech is vital on school and university campuses. Additionally, educational institutions are fundamentally a place to learn and grow personally and professionally. However, when opinions are censored or suppressed, education becomes biased, undermining the formation of opinions because students are not exposed to all aspects of the matter. Consequently, the First Amendment, which protects free speech, is essential.

When Jeremy understands that he will not be “arrested, executed, or otherwise punished” for any of his views and that because of the First Amendment, he has the right to say as much or as little as he wants; he is then free to develop at his own pace, in a direction of his choosing. Thus, the First Amendment allows Jeremy to freely shape his thoughts and opinions by not restricting him.

Should Hate Speech Be Protected by the First Amendment: Essay

The First Amendment, in the minds of most Americans, brings up the high-held thought of free speech. The concept of free speech–a relatively new concept in modern history– is seen to be a fundamental pillar in what is to be any free society. In recent years, in an effort to make the nation more tolerant and to have less prejudice towards others, many have fought for the need to label some speech—hate speech. Although hate speech is not regulated in the U.S., it’s widely interpreted to mean “demeaning or derogatory speech or writing that verbally attacks people on the basis that they are part of, or seem to be part of, a social group of protected attributes, such as race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identity, etc.” The debate on whether the First Amendment protects hate speech and whether it should only lead to a further divide in how Americans view other Americans on the other side of the political spectrum. Some view that limiting the First Amendment to restrict hate speech is a slippery slope and dangerous to the republic’s principles; others believe that not restricting hate speech is morally wrong and dangerous to those to whom it’s hateful. Overall, hate speech is difficult to define, especially when who it’s hateful toward is constantly in flux. For that reason, so-called hate speech becomes a necessary evil that needs to be lived with in order to maintain a free society.

The difficulty in defining hate objectively has led the Supreme Court to continuously rule that so-called hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Yet, more recently, the idea of hate speech and its impacts on others has wrongfully taken a more significant role in national politics. The restrictions that do exist on the First Amendment have been established due to their incitement of violence or a direct threat towards someone; this includes threatening people due to their race or religion, but not because it was about race or religion but because it is a threat to the sovereignty of the individual. In turn, the Supreme Court has been very cautious in restricting people’s ability to say what they wish–no matter the controversy. The Court has taken the overall position that the ability to offend others is more important to the preservation of a free society. For example, in the Illinois Supreme Court case of Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America, the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA) was permitted to hold a demonstration in the village of Skokie—a village with a heavy Jewish population—since the group had a First Amendment right to a public demonstration of their views, no matter how distasteful. This demonstrates the federal precedence set for this situation is towards the preservation of free speech, so much so, that even Nazi sympathizers have a right to espouse their views in public. Even if the Supreme Court were to rule that hate speech is not protected, that decision would also hurt the groups and people that the phrase is intended to protect. During the Civil Rights era, black leaders fed up with slow progress “routinely inveighed against white America using inflammatory rhetoric”. They challenged the status quo. Yet, these groups were characterized as hate groups. This put them under the continuous scrutiny of the FBI during the Hoover Administration, which would lead to harassment of members and occasionally violence—justified, of course, by the fact that these black nationalist groups were encouraging hate. If the Supreme Court had ruled against hate speech at that time. These groups fighting against segregation could’ve been silenced by the government legally. Furthermore, the fight against hate speech has always crumbled when presented to the Supreme Court to protect the freedom of speech for all instead of limiting it to a subjective basis for the sole purpose of protecting people from distasteful rhetoric.

The fight against hate speech has become more mainstream as social media has expanded the potential reach of an individual to an extent never seen by any other form of communication previously. Yet that also leads to not only a conflict between free speech and hate speech but also a conflict between public and private organizations being able to enforce rules as they see fit. Social media currently has two ways of being labeled as, publisher or platform, “a figurative blank sheet of paper on which anyone can write anything…[or] one can argue that social media platforms have now evolved [into] curators of content”. In other words, either social media sites are responsible for every word on their platform—as in, publishers like newspapers—or they don’t take responsibility for any word on their platform because the responsibility is solely of the individual using the program—as in, platforms like cell phone companies.

First Amendment Banned Books Essay

The authors’ opinions are frequently reflected in child fiction works, which is why they are criticized. When a figure of authority takes steps to prevent the reading of a book or portions of it, this is known as book banning and censorship. Book banning has been going on for a long time, and it applies to a wide range of work for a wide range of reasons. Books are banned and restricted because the content of the books is deemed to be damaging to the reader. Children’s fiction books are being challenged and banned. Even though a challenger may have a variety of motives for desiring to, the motivating factors are usually the same. The four motivating factors for book censorship and banning are family values, religion, political beliefs, and minority rights.

Book banning has become an issue that has started to affect children and their interests. Children’s fiction literature was created for children to enjoy and relate to this type of literature. There are studies where it shows that this level of literature is a good exposure for children. Fiction novels help children to relate to real life and compare what is right and what is wrong. One factor that has been affecting children’s fiction book banning is religion. This is due to the different stories that are told and that sometimes involve characters or things that are not real. A lot of fiction books talk about magic which in some religions may be seen as witchcraft. Not only do authors use fiction to give children imagination they also use it to address environmental problems or their political point of view. For example, the book “The Lorax” was used to address environmental problems that involve global warming. A lot of people were not happy with their children hearing about this topic since they did not agree with the author’s point of view. Family values influence what a child is allowed to read and what may be seen as unacceptable, but in the end, it all goes back to religion. Each family’s values are distinct from one another. What is considered appropriate reading for children is determined by its values. As a result, the reasons for banning books vary greatly. A book involving violence, for example, would go against the principles of a family that values peace and does not believe in violence. The family may object to the book being read and may challenge it. There is tension in every story and every person has a different point of view.

Book Banning plays a leading role in schools. In the past four years, there have been at least 250 attempts by school districts at book banning. There has been a lot of public controversy and considerable legal debate on how much power the school boards have. The article” The Role of motivation in judicial review of book banning in the public schools” by Elizabeth Gamsky talks about how the school’ boards’ abuse of discretion becomes so flagrant that the courts must intervene. Even in the highly constrained setting of primary and secondary schools, school boards are bound by constitutional restraints. The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in Board of Education v. Pico, to the language of the note, but the Justices were unable to reach an agreement. The Justices attempted to strike a balance between the schools’ inculcative purpose and the First Amendment’s prohibition on ideological prescriptions in seven distinct rulings. Pico plurality developed a motivation test to examine whether moves to remove books from libraries are lawful. The dissenting Justices expressed concerns that the plurality’s standard would turn the Court into a ‘super censor’ of school boards’ discretionary judgments. The Court has never dealt with the subject of book banning in public schools before Pico. However, the fundamental conflict has already bedeviled the Court. The Court encountered the same challenge in identifying the constitutional boundaries on local school boards’ authority in the desegregation decisions. In both book removal and desegregation cases, court examination into motivation has the same goal: to prevent a school board from doing something it could not do plainly. This issue has been going on for many years, but it has never truly been addressed. It has been attempted to be solved but there has never been a fair agreement and solution.

To continue we have the right to read whatever we want, and just because someone else does not like it does not mean we have to agree with them. Every year, new books are added to these lists, and you would think that in the twenty-first century, we would not need to have lists like this, but some people have the same right to ban books as we do to read them. Many of the books that have been banned are those that discuss real-world issues and how people behave in real life. Some people do not want to read about such things and believe that having them banned is a good method to prevent people from doing so. In the article “Book banning is not about protecting children; it is adult political posturing Kathie Obradovich talks about her own experience with book banning. She talks about how the books that she grew up reading are now banned. Books that were required to be read for schools are now banned due to parents’ beliefs. One example she gave was “To Kill a Mockingbird” which has been a very known book for many years, and I loved that book. As she mentions in the article parents are trying to shield their children from topics that do not want to be talked about such as LGBTQ content or race-related content but have no problem with exposing their children to extreme violence and sexual content that can be found on the internet or video games. These actions just show how parents do not care about books, they just want their children to share their same values and beliefs and they see books as a threat. This article also explains how legislative analysts do not take any time to see if a book would qualify as obscene under the United States Supreme Court standards. Most of the books that have been banned should not have been because it does not show any kind of threat to children. This just shows how much effect politics have in book banning.

Book Banning has been happening our whole life, but it has never been talked about. The article “Book Banning” by A.G Noorani talks about the system of book banning in India. Book Banning has occurred throughout the years in India since books covered topics such as religious controversy, nationalism, and politics. This action did not only introduce the action of book banning but it also provided the banning of literature. Even though India has instituted these policies it also recognizes that citizens are entitled to such rights. Due to these rights India banns books using two methods, prevention of importation and confiscation of books sold in India. The reason to take this action is to maintain the security of India and to maintain public order and standards of decency. This action is considered unconstitutional because it takes away the right of freedom of speech to citizens. The article “Banning Books” by Romila Thapar talks about the frequency with which books are banned or publishers are forced to withdraw them because of threats from groups linked with religious, caste, or political organizations has been one of the more worrisome occurrences in recent times in India. The argument provided is almost always that the book in question offends a community’s religious, caste, or ethnic feelings. It is also illegal to portray a political figure in a negative light, even if he is no longer living, or to criticize a politico-cultural group for its actions. Those who are calling for the ban claim to be speaking on behalf of the entire community. The article “Book Banning, Censorship, and Ethnic Studies in Urban Schools by Luis Arrieta talks about how the U.S. has not been a model in the protection of minorities and people’s human rights. It has never really addressed the problem and even though it has been taken to court there haven’t been any fair solutions proposed.

Censorship and the First Amendment Essay

Social progress is defined as the capacity of a society to establish the building blocks that allow citizens to enhance the quality of their lives. The media is a dominant indicator of social progress nowadays and it is conclusive that social media’s audience across the world gives individuals new responsibilities and risks. Due to the effects and influence of social media on the public, free speech cannot be preserved in modern-day society. Social media regulation is inevitable and free speech in a world controlled by social media cannot occur due to censorship of the content that the reader sees. Whether the government intervenes or not, free speech in social media will always be censored to some degree. Freedom of speech implies the opportunity for the dissipated expression of the opposite views.

The “marketplace of ideas” refers to “the test of the truth or acceptance of ideas depends on the competition of one another and not on the opinion of a censor from an authority” (Middle Tennessee University). Social media imposes censorship which does not encourage the free flow of ideas, and therefore violates the First Amendment, so free speech cannot transpire. Societal and governmental pressure has restrained free speech ambitions to the point where the regulation of social media is inevitable. The Elonis v. U.S. case is the first instance that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that involved “the constitutionality of prosecuting potential threats in a social media context” (United States Courts). Just like the Elonis v. U.S. case, every new communications technology undergoes the same evolutionary process that ultimately concludes with regulation from authorities. This type of regulation is designed to persuade these communicative outlets into shaping society towards the ends we believe are most productive for society at the moment, therefore not allowing for expansive ideas on account of censorship. Some may speculate that social media allows for free expression on the platforms and that the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship.

The First Amendment protects hate speech, obscenity, misinformation, and harassment from government censorship which allows for free speech on social media.“The First Amendment doesn’t apply to private companies… and not all speech is protected under the First Amendment. Libel, incitement of violence, and child pornography are all forms of speech, yet we censor them” (NYTimes). Social media platforms are private companies and can censor what people post on their websites, but these limitations can be used as a form of subjugation and oppression by authorities. Nevertheless, censorship remains one of the most noteworthy threats when it comes to the First Amendment. The development of processing technologies changes the media and communication systems. The amount of influence that social media has on the public changes and manipulates the users in violation of the First Amendment. These new systems create a contingency for the jurisdiction of the freedom of speech and the risks of the distribution of false information. 

Essay on Libertarian View on First Amendment

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is a cornerstone of American democracy, guaranteeing fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. While there are various perspectives on the interpretation and application of the First Amendment, one notable viewpoint is that of libertarianism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty, limited government intervention, and the protection of individual rights. This essay explores the libertarian view on the First Amendment, examining its key principles and implications.

At the core of the libertarian perspective on the First Amendment is the belief in the inherent rights of individuals to express their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs freely. Libertarians argue that freedom of speech is essential for the functioning of a free and open society, as it enables the exchange of ideas, the pursuit of truth, and the ability to challenge established norms and authorities. From a libertarian standpoint, restrictions on speech by the government or any other authority are viewed as encroachments on individual liberty and an infringement on the First Amendment.

Libertarians also advocate for the broadest possible interpretation of the First Amendment, encompassing not only political and popular speech but also controversial and offensive speech. They contend that even speech that is considered offensive or harmful should be protected, as individuals have the right to express their views, regardless of whether they are considered popular or socially acceptable. This viewpoint reflects the libertarian commitment to limited government intervention and the belief that individuals should have the freedom to express themselves without fear of censorship or punishment.

Another aspect of the libertarian view on the First Amendment is the belief in the marketplace of ideas. Libertarians argue that in a society where free speech is protected, ideas and beliefs will be subject to public scrutiny and evaluation, and the best ideas will prevail. They emphasize the importance of open debate, dialogue, and the free flow of information to promote intellectual progress and social improvement. In this regard, libertarians see the First Amendment as a safeguard against tyranny and a means to challenge the status quo.

However, it is important to note that the libertarian view on the First Amendment does not absolve individuals from the consequences of their speech. While libertarians advocate for the protection of speech, they also recognize that individuals are responsible for the impact their words may have on others. Libertarians argue that social and cultural mechanisms, rather than government intervention, should address harmful or offensive speech. They believe that individuals should exercise personal responsibility and engage in voluntary forms of social accountability, such as boycotting or criticizing speech they find objectionable.

Furthermore, the libertarian view on the First Amendment extends beyond speech to encompass other freedoms, such as freedom of religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. Libertarians maintain that individuals should have the freedom to practice their religion, publish their thoughts, peacefully assemble, and petition the government for grievances without undue interference. These freedoms are seen as essential for maintaining a free and autonomous society, where individuals are able to exercise their rights without excessive government control.

In summary, the libertarian view on the First Amendment emphasizes the importance of individual liberty, limited government intervention, and the protection of free speech and other fundamental freedoms. Libertarians argue for the widest possible interpretation of the First Amendment, advocating for the protection of all forms of speech, even if controversial or offensive. They believe that the marketplace of ideas, open debate, and personal responsibility are key components of a free society. While the libertarian perspective on the First Amendment offers a strong defense of individual freedom, it also recognizes the need for individuals to exercise responsibility and face the consequences of their speech. By understanding the libertarian viewpoint, we can engage in informed discussions about the balance between individual liberties and societal interests in the context of the First Amendment

The Necessity To Remove The Signs Of God From Federal Buildings, Monuments And Money Due To The First Amendment

The issue that I have chosen off isidewith.com is just under the title of “First Amendment.” The actual issue is whether or not the government should support separation of church and state by removing references to god on money, federal buildings, national monuments, and in the pledge of allegiance. This topic, while not being as controversial as other things such as abortion or gun control, can be somewhat controversial across the country. The poll off isidewith.com shows that 73% of voters say no, that the government should not remove these references and 27% say yes, that the government should remove these references off money, national monuments, etc.

Of the 27% that do support that the government should remove these references there are a few solid arguments. One of these arguments being that in putting “in God we trust” on bills and “under god” in the pledge of allegiance we are essentially forcing religion in what is supposed to be a free religion “godless” country united under a “godless” constitution. “In God we trust” has even been the official motto of the entire United States of America since 1956. Previously, before 1956, the motto was “E pluribus unum.” This is a latin term meaning “out of many, one” or “one out of many” and it is used to unite the entire country. It is essentially saying that although we may be many states and people we are still together as one country. Many people believe that this should be reinstated as the official motto of the country instead of “in god we trust” because it actually unites the whole country no matter the religion instead of dividing it like “In God we trust” does.

Another argument used to support the yes side of this argument would be that putting the phrase “In God we trust” and “under God” on money and in the pledge essentially weakens it and makes it borderline meaningless. What should be a sacred phrase to many people becomes pointless if you are forced to say it in the pledge and forced to see it everywhere on money. The 26th president of the United States himself, Theodore Roosevelt, said, ‘My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence which comes dangerously close to sacrilege. A beautiful and solemn sentence such as the one in question should be treated and uttered only with that fine reverence which necessarily implies a certain exaltation of spirit. Any use which tends to cheapen it, and above all, any use which tends to secure its being treated in a spirit of levity, is from every standpoint profoundly to be regretted.’

The last of the solid arguments I have found comes from a man named Michael Newdow who was quoted by the Religion News Service in 2006 saying ‘It’s such a fraud. In this nation that’s supposed to be this beacon of religious liberty, a bastion of equality. What’s next? ‘In Jesus We Trust’? ‘In Protestantism We Trust’?’ His point being that, for one, if we allow this for all we know in the future phrases such as the examples given could be put on currency, monuments, etc. and for two that we can’t just allow any religion to put a religious phrase on money or in the pledge. For example, if the country were to put an Islamic phrase such as “Alluhah Akbar” in the pledge or on money and national monuments that would get much more negative feedback and backlash. There was even a case that went to court about an atheist father saying that forcing his daughter to say “under God” in the pledge violated his and her first amendment rights. The Chief Justice John Paul Stevens said the father didn’t have standing to bring suit because he lacked sufficient custody over his daughter.

While there are a few solid arguments for removing references to God on money, federal buildings, and national monuments there is also a few good arguments for keeping these references to God on those things. The first argument I have found is saying that they should keep these references because of the history that the phrase “In God we trust” and Christianity has in America. That phrase was even in the entire version of “The Star Spangled Banner.” Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow of the America Center for Law and Justice said in 2006, ‘Let’s not forget the historical significance of the phrase ‘In God We Trust.’ Use of the slogan dates back to the War of 1812. In September 1814, fearing for the fate of America while watching the British bombardment of Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Francis Scott Key composed the poem the ‘Star Spangled Banner,’ of which one line in the final stanza is ‘And this be our motto – ‘in God is our trust.’ When Congress codified the longstanding motto in 1956 – fifty years ago – it articulated a purpose that reflected patriotic inspiration: ‘It will be of great spiritual and psychological value to our country to have a clearly designated national motto of inspirational quality in plain, popularly accepted English.’”

Another argument for keeping these references to God is the amount of money and trouble it would cost to remove it from national monuments, money, and federal buildings. While there isn’t any calculations as to how much it would actually cost to remove the phrase from all money, federal buildings, national monuments, etc, it most likely would not be very cheap. It also would not be easy and would be troublesome. Many believe that it just should not be a priority over other more important topics and problems in America.

The final argument against removing the phrase is how far people would go with it. There are many other things such as cities and so on that have religious origins, and some people think that if we were to change the “In God we trust” on coins and monuments that it wouldn’t end there. Brad Dacus, President of the Pacific Justice Institute, said ‘If the courts don’t protect the national motto, we have to ask ourselves what is next-are we going to rename San Francisco and all the other major cities in California whose names have obvious religious connotations? American history, including our national motto, is nothing to be ashamed of. To the contrary, the unprecedented religious tolerance, devotion and diversity of our nation, reflected in the statement ‘In God We Trust,’ should be a tremendous source of pride for every American.’

Currently America’s legislation allows these phrases such as “In God we trust” and “under God” to be used on coins, national monuments, federal buildings, and in the pledge of allegiance. In my opinion, I think that removing the phrase from coins, the pledge of allegiance, and federal buildings (if it is a simple fix such as taking down a plaque or repainting a specific area) would be a good idea, but the trouble to take it off national monuments might be a little too extreme, especially if it is a monument made of stone or an old monument that people might not want to change. I believe that we shouldn’t have anything religion related on anything federally owned because that, to me, is essentially saying that the whole country should follow that certain religion when this is supposed to be a religion free country.