Daily Archives: February 7, 2017

What is Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Speech is an unalienable right afforded to every citizen of the United States of America; these rights make mention of the statutes expressed in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States a statute that provides every American citizen to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. With regard to the provisions set forth within the 1st Amendment to the United States, the Freedom of Speech prohibits the unlawful banning, prohibition, and ceasing of unlawful censorship. 1st Amendment Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789 Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791 Contents of the Amendment: This Amendment affords citizens of the United States with the freedom of religion, the freedom of press, the freedom of speech, and the right of assembly; the freedom of speech is considered to not only be granted by the Federal Government, but also protected by them as well Legislative Classification: Bill of Rights Is the Freedom of Speech a Human Right? The Freedom of Speech is considered to be both a Human Right and Human Liberty; the determination of this relies heavily of the circumstance surrounding then nature, objective, and intent of the speech. In contrast to the precepts inherent in Human Rights, Human Liberties typically maintain a nature of action and event in which personal choice and freedom is implicit. Human Liberties such as the Freedom of Speech - afforded to citizens of the United States are undertaken through agency and autonomy in lieu of circumstance or permissive mandating. Human Liberties are defined as the opportunities, entitlements, and awards granted to the specific citizens of a country or nation that are applicable to social interaction and interpersonal activity taking place within a societal level. Legal and Illegal Freedom of Speech and Expression Although Freedom of Speech is considered to be an inalienable Human Right, with regard to activity or actions that employ the Freedom of Speech and expression for means that contract the legality and legislative statutes mandatory within the United States of America, that Freedom of Speech may be defined as either a human liberty or even a crime. Expression and activities deemed to be damaging, hateful, and prejudicial in their nature including expression and activity serving to denigrate and rob others of their respective pursuit of happiness - are considered to be both an unlawful and illegal act: Freedom of Speech and Prejudice Prejudice can be defined as the discrimination against another group or individual with regard to an individual trait or characteristic believed to be out of the control of the individual who displays it, which may include discrimination and crimes committed out of personal and unfounded bias. Freedom of Speech and Public Policy Although the rights expressed within the United States Constitution allow for every American citizen to the right to freedom of speech, expressed prejudice with regard to the happiness, opportunity, and wellbeing of another individual is both illegal and unlawful this can include biased hiring practices and admission policies. Freedom of Speech and Criminal Activity Hate Crimes, or any form of harm caused due to a latent prejudice or personal bias is considered to be illegal on the grounds that ones freedom of speech results in the dissolution of another individuals pursuit of happiness. Comments

comments

More here:
Freedom Of Speech - Censorship | Laws.com

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Freedom of speech can be limited during wartime. The government can restrict expressions that would create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Read More.

Abrams v. United States (1919)

The First Amendment did not protect printing leaflets urging to resist the war effort, calling for a general strike, and advocating violent revolution. Read More.

Debs v. United States (1919)

The First Amendment did not protect an anti-war speech designed to obstruct recruiting. Read More.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

The Supreme Court applied protection of free speech to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Read More.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

The First Amendment did not protect fighting words which, by being said, cause injury or cause an immediate breach of the peace. Read More.

West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)

The West Virginia Boards policy requiring students and teachers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Reversing Minersville v. Gobitas (1940), the Court held government cannot force citizens to confess by word or act their faith in matters of opinion. Read More.

United States v. OBrien (1968)

The First Amendment did not protect burning draft cards in protest of the Vietnam War as a form of symbolic speech. Read More.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

The Court ruled that students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was pure speech, or symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. Read More.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

The Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected speech advocating violence at a Ku Klux Klan rally because the speech did not call for imminent lawless action. Read More.

Cohen v. California (1971)

A California statute prohibiting the display of offensive messages violated freedom of expression. Read More.

Miller v. California (1973)

This case set forth rules for obscenity prosecutions, but it also gave states and localities flexibility in determining what is obscene. Read More.

Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)

The Supreme Court ruled that officials could not remove books from school libraries because they disagreed with the content of the books messages. Read More.

Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)

A school could suspend a pupil for giving a student government nomination speech full of elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor. Read More.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Flag burning as political protest is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. Read More.

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)

A criminal ordinance prohibiting the display of symbols that arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender was unconstitutional. The law violated the First Amendment because it punished speech based on the ideas expressed. Read More.

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

The 1996 Communications Decency Act was ruled unconstitutional since it was overly broad and vague in its regulation of speech on the Internet, and since it attempted to regulate indecent speech, which the First Amendment protects. Read More.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Stratton (2002)

City laws requiring permits for political advocates going door to door were unconstitutional because such a mandate would have a chilling effect on political communication. Read More.

United States v. American Library Association (2003)

The federal government could require public libraries to use Internet-filtering software to prevent viewing of pornography by minors. The burden placed on adult patrons who had to request the filters be disabled was minimal. Read More.

Virginia v. Hicks (2003)

Richmond could ban non-residents from public housing complexes if the non-residents did not have a legitimate business or social purpose for being there. The trespass policy was not overbroad and did not infringe upon First Amendment rights. Read More.

Virginia v. Black (2003)

A blanket ban on cross-burning was an unconstitutional content-based restriction on free speech. States could ban cross burning with intent to intimidate, but the cross burning act alone was not enough evidence to infer intent. Read More.

Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004)

The Child On-Line Protection Act violated the First Amendment because it was overbroad, it resulted in content-based restrictions on speech, and there were less-restrictive options available to protect children from harmful materials. Read More.

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

The First Amendment did not protect a public school students right to display a banner reading Bong Hits 4 Jesus. While students have the right to engage in political speech, the right was outweighed by the schools mission to discourage drug use. Read More.

Continued here:
Freedom of Speech: General - Bill of Rights Institute

The 1960s Berkeley Free Speech Movement leader warned that freedom exercised irresponsibly or freedom repressed could bring disgrace upon our university.

Mario Savio, leader of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, speaks to assembled students on the campus at the University of California in Berkeley, California on December 7, 1964. (AP Photo / Robert W. Klein)

Since publishing my biography of Berkeley Free Speech Movement leader Mario Savio almost a decade ago, I have often been asked what Savio would say about a host of contemporary issues. Since Savio died in 1996 and there was only one Mario Savio, it usually seemed to me inappropriate to speculate on how he might have viewed events that he unfortunately did not live to see. However, the free-speech controversy that raged this past month over the Berkeley College Republicansponsored speaking event of the hateful far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, and the violent disruption of his talk last week, raised questions addressed so often and eloquently by Savio that one can see how he would likely have viewed them just by reflecting on his relevant writings and speeches on freedom of speech, minority rights, responsibility, and community.

The first point is so obvious it barely needs saying: Mario Savio supported the right of speakers from all political perspectives to speak on campus. He helped lead the Free Speech Movement in 1964 to secure that right and endured suspension from school and months in jail for the acts of civil disobedience (the mass sit-ins) he led at Cal to win those rights. Rather than ban speakers he disagreed with, Savio debated them, whether they were deans, faculty, the student-body president, or whoever. And this was the spirit not only of Savio but of the FSM, which had an almost Gandhian faith that through open discourse anyone had the potential to be won over to the movements free-speech cause, whose justness seemed to them self-evident.

Savio supported freedom of speech not merely on instrumental grounds but as an end in itself, since speech acts were in his eyes the essence of what it meant to be human, and were the key to enlightenment and freedom. Having suffered with a very serious speech defect that blocked his ability to speak fluidly in his childhood and teens, Savio developed a very personal, even spiritual reverence for freedom of speech, and a disdain for attempts to constrict that freedom. Indeed, though an ex-Catholic, Savio used religious imagery to express that reverence. Citing his favorite quote by Diogenes that the most beautiful thing in the world is the freedom of speech, Savio explained that those words areburned into my soul, because for me free speech was not a tactic, not something to win for political [advantage]. To me freedom of speech is something that represents the very dignity of what a human being is. Thats what marks us off from the stones and the stars. You can speak freely. It is almost impossible for me to describe. It is the thing that marks us as just below the angels. I dont want to push this beyond where it should be pushed, but I feel it.

So Savio would almost certainly have disagreed with the faculty and students who urged the administration to ban Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus, and been heartened by the chancellors refusal to ban a speaker. But that does not mean Savio would have been dismissive of the concerns the faculty raised in their letter seeking to ban Yiannopoulos on account of Yiannopouloss history of crude and cruel baiting of students of color, women, and transgender students in his campus speeches. Savio was a veteran of the civil-rights movement whose battle against racism had led to his arrest in a nonviolent sit-in for fair hiring in San Franciscos Sheraton Palace Hotel, and then to risk his life in the historic Mississippi Freedom Summer crusade for black voting rights. So it is not surprising that later in Savios life when he was on the faculty of Sonoma State University he sought to convince the editors of the student newspaper there that their use of the term nigger in the paper was hurtful and irresponsible, which is why it had sparked angry protests by African-American students. Savio did not deny students had the right to print what they chose, but asked that they reach out to their black classmates and reflect on whether in the future they could be more thoughtful about the impact their words had on the campus community.

The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.

The Berkeley College Republicans (BCRs) who invited Yiannopoulos have been quick to invoke the FSM and to present themselves and Yiannopoulos as free speech martyrsa position embraced by much of the mass media. But in the context of Savios speeches and writings about free speech, the Republicans might want to be a bit more reflective. Listen to Savios words from the FSM victory rally, December 9, 1964: We are asking that there be no, no restrictions on the content of speech save those provided by the courts. And thats an enormous amount of freedom. And people can say things in that area of freedom which are not responsible. Nowweve finally gotten into a position where we have to consider being responsible, because we now have the freedom within which to be responsible. And Id like to say at this timeIm confident that the students and the faculty of the University of California will exercise their freedom with the same responsibility theyve shown in winning their freedom. (Emphasis added.) In other words, merely because you have the right to invite a hateful and irresponsible speaker to campus does not mean that it was responsible to do so. Indeed, when the Daily Californian editors questioned the BCR spokesman, they found that he had not even read or heard Yiannopouloss speeches on other campuses. That interview suggested that the BCR had invited him for the spectacle involved and to antagonize the Berkeley left. Again, that is their right. But is it responsible? Does it promote dialogue? Or does it just inflame and polarize?

For Savio, these would not likely have seemed trivial questions. He wanted all to speak freely, but also to be thoughtful as both speakers and listeners. This is why on the FSMs 25th anniversary, in Savios design for a Free Speech Movement monument (never built) he included not only the Diogenes quote cited above on the beauty of freedom of speech but an ephebic oath (modeled on that of ancient Athens) to remind speakers of their special responsibility. The oath read: We will never intentionally bring disgrace uponour university. By our words and actions we endeavor to honor the ideals of those who came before us, and deepen and strengthen the community in which we are privileged to speak.

I remember when first reading the words Savio chose for his FSM monument design how surprised I was that he had coupled the liberalism of Diogenes with the conservatism of the ephebic oath. After all, we tend to associate the 1960s, the decade of the FSM, with an anything goes philosophy. But when you considered Savios intensive study of ancient Greece and Rome in his early college years, it made sense that he would understand the dangers of demagoguery, that the great gift of free speech could be abused. His answer, of course, was not to repress speech but to urge speakers and listeners to think critically about their discourse. And so he hoped that the Diogenes quote and the oath would lead speakers to judge whether they had spoken worthily and encourage the audience at Berkeley to judge critically whether the speech it hears is really free or merely cant.

What Mario Savio did in his FSM victory speech in 1964 was in its own way reminiscent of what Martin Luther King Jr. did in his March on Washington speech a year earlier. Both were seeing beyond their time, with King sharing his dream of an America freed from the shackles of racism and Savio envisioning a campus as it was being reborn, liberated from its history of binding restrictions on political expression. Without idolizing Savio, it is not too much to see in the oath he designed a kind of prophetic warning that freedom exercised irresponsibly or freedom repressed could bring disgrace upon our university. Those were the words that came to mind when the live stream on my computer brought those disturbing images of windows smashed and fires ignited in the student union last week. Savio is, sadly, no longer with us, but I hope his words will push us all to reflect on whether our actions in this crisis have honored the free speech ideals of those who came before us and served to deepen and strengthen the community in which we are privileged to speak.

Continue reading here:
What Might Mario Savio Have Said About the Milo Protest at Berkeley? - The Nation.