# data[].attributes.body
-The fact that people freely speak of their hatred toward certain groups
-Certain people, such as Muslims or other immigrants, are given no say just as blacks had no freedom of speech prior to the 50's
-If citizens get offended by an individuals speech they may get that person in trouble with the law and take them to court
-Many court cases are inconsistent, making it hard to draw the line between freedom and jail

# data[].attributes.body
Courts have accepted certain restrictions on speech that is dangerous, seditious, or obscene

The courts have been largely responsible for protecting and extending this right of speech. Over the past two centuries they have explored the protection owed all sorts of expression, including sedition, "fighting words," "dangerous" speech, and obscenity, and all sorts of persons, including political radicals, Ku Klux Klansmen, and even students. But in doing so, the courts have also operated under the premise that a portion of the British legacy was correct: the right to speech is not absolute. As a result, the legal history of the First Amendment could be summarized as a balancing act—an attempt to protect and extend free speech guarantees but also define the limits of this right in a manner consistent with the equally compelling rights of the community.

# data[].attributes.body
Wording: Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Meaning: The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint

# data[].attributes.body
The freedoms of speech, press, assembly and the right to petition the government and seek redress of grievances proclaim that citizens have the right to call the government to account. Freedom of speech and press allows citizens to communicate their ideas verbally and in writing, while freedom of assembly lets them publicly express a common interest. The right to petition allows citizens to point out to the government where it did not follow the law, to seek changes, as well as damages for such missteps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why wasn’t the Bill of Rights originally in the US Constitution? - James Coll

# data[].attributes.body
Tinker vs. Des Moines
In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year's Eve. The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension. On December 16, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands to school and were sent home. The following day, John Tinker did the same with the same result. The students did not return to school until after New Year's Day, the planned end of the protest.

DECISION:
7-2 for Tinker
The Supreme Court held that the armbands represented pure speech that is entirely separate from the actions or conduct of those participating in it. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. In order to justify the suppression of speech, the school officials must be able to prove that the conduct in question would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school. In this case, the school district's actions evidently stemmed from a fear of possible disruption rather than any actual interference.
QUESTION OF THE CASE:
Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Speech: Crash Course Government and Politics #25

# data[].attributes.body
Bethel School District vs. Fraser
A public school student was suspended for giving a speech at a school assembly that included indecent content.  Matthew Fraser was a high school student who gave a speech to nominate another student for a student government office.  Approximately 600 other students voluntarily attended the assembly at which the speech was given.  The speech included repeated use of an “elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor,” in reference to the other student.  The speech caused his fellow students to yell and make obscene gestures.  He later admitted using sexual innuendo in the speech and was suspended. He was also banned from speaking at graduation. The school had a standing policy against disruptive conduct.  He sued the school for violating his right to free speech.

DECISION:
7-2 for the School
No. The Court found that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Chief Justice Burger distinguished between political speech which the Court previously had protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and the supposed sexual content of Fraser's message at the assembly. Burger concluded that the First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse was inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education."

QUESTION OF THE CASE:
Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly?

# data[].attributes.body
West virginia vs Barnette
The West Virginia Board of Education required that the flag salute be part of the program of activities in all public schools. All teachers and pupils were required to honor the Flag; refusal to salute was treated as "insubordination" and was punishable by expulsion and charges of delinquency.

DECISION:
6-3 for Barnette
The Court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and held that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. The Court found that such a salute was a form of utterance and was a means of communicating ideas. "Compulsory unification of opinion," the Court held, was doomed to failure and was antithetical to First Amendment values. Writing for the majority, Justice Jackson argued that "[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
QUESTION OF THE CASE:
Did the compulsory flag-salute for public schoolchildren violate the First Amendment?

# data[].attributes.body
There have been issues with what are the limits of free speech in the sense of should it be allowed if it is hate speech?

This is more of a state example of hate speech and how it is being looked at.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
He approaches students on their way to and from class, attempting to bring them to the Lord. He grasps a sign firmly, expressing his beliefs, with the word "hell" accented in blood red font.

His young daughter stands by his side, holding a sign similar to his. They vary from one to several people preaching outside of Wells Hall. He locks eyes with students walking past and encourages them to talk to him about God and their lifestyle.

He preaches the word to them, prays over them, and hands out bibles.

The First Amendment gives Pastor Michael Venyah and others the right to stand outside of Wells and preach or say whatever they want.

There is some debate as to whether or not there is a point when freedom of speech should no longer be honored. Students are protected under this right. Universities have their own policies on freedom of speech and how it is practiced on campus.

"Michigan State is wholly dedicated to freedom of speech, not just as a public institution, but as an institution of higher education," according to MSU's free speech website. "Here, ideas-not people-are meant to clash and to be evaluated based on their merits."

Hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. White nationalist Richard Spencer spoke at MSU on March 5. Spencer was first denied access to speaking on campus due to safety concerns, but the university eventually allowed him to speak. He came to the MSU Pavilion for Agriculture and Livestock Education during spring break to minimize safety concerns.

People like Spencer and Venyah speaking in public has sparked the question: how much free speech should be allowed on campus?

Faculty and administration response

MSU worked to come up with neutral locations during the Spencer rally for the sake of students' safety and to prevent disruptive activity. They chose an environment for him to speak that would be as safe as possible for the community, MSU Vice President and university spokesperson Emily Guerrant said.

"While the university rejects the group's divisive and racist messages we understand that as a public institution we cannot prohibit groups or individuals speaking in public forums," Guerrant said.

The university steps in when there are safety concerns, one of the limited exceptions to restricting free speech.

"MSU supports and encourages freedom of speech in all instances," Guerrant said.

Free speech is something not one person should have control over or should be defined by a person in power, journalism professor and Editor in Residence Joe Grimm said. It is something that is protected by the constitution and it should not be hindered, even if the majority does not agree with what is being said, Grimm said.

"I think we do not have a good definition of hate speech," Grimm said. "I am very afraid who gets to decide what is hate speech, and when we will get to the point when they make people stop talking and silence their voices."

If someone says something is vile, they still have the right to express their opinion, Grimm said.

"A public university is in many ways a government institution, so you have this problem where the constitution protects something that is there for all of us, that is the right to say what we want," Grimm said. "And then you have people who want to take advantage of that by saying things that they are allowed to say, but are stupid, that are hateful, destructive."

He said he is afraid of what might happen if every person gets to decide what speech should and should not be free.

"We cannot run around and have every city, every township, every county, every state, every university make up their own rules for what is hate speech," he said. "We are talking about a federal constitutional amendment. I think it has to be decided in the courts."

Grimm said he thinks the university held Spencer's visit at the best time and best location, as not many people were on campus at the time. The smart thing to do is stay away if you do not agree with what someone is saying, Grimm said.

"I don't think many people heard his (Spencer's) message, and I don't think anyone was surprised by it," Grimm said. "He was not really breaking new ground there, and not may people heard him speak, and that is fine with me."
Students on Campus
Freedom of speech affects journalism junior Claire Postelli's education and what she is able to write about.

"I love being able to see both sides of the story and making sure I am informing myself through the biases," Postelli said.

Postelli does not think censorship is justified, and threats and extreme hate speech can still be voiced by others, she said. However, she said she thinks the platforms and ways of communication should be restricted.

"When it comes to threats or extreme hate speech, while people can still voice that due to our freedom of speech, I think when it comes to the platforms they are involved in, that is when the censorship can happen," Postelli said.

MSU is honoring free speech the best it can as an institution and letting every side of the argument be expressed, Postelli said. But Postelli did not agree with MSU's decision to allow Spencer to speak at the university. It should not have given him access to that platform, Postelli said.

"Yes, these opinions can be expressed, and they are expressed, and they do exist, but as a university what are you saying when you allow hate speech to come here, and what do you say when people are arrested at those times," Postelli said.
Visitors on Campus
Venyah of Soul Winners Fellowship Church stands outside of Wells Hall from time to time with others from his congregation to preach to students as they walk by. They often hold up signs expressing their mission. He has faced opposition for sharing his beliefs with other students.

He is within the university's policy and his rights under the First Amendment to stand outside and voice his message to students.

"Freedom of speech is very important," Venyah said. "It is a biblical mandate and a constitutional right."

Postelli said those who stand outside of Wells have the right to hold up signs, but when they approach others is where they need to alter their practices. When they bring up hard topics, they should ask for the other person's permission to proceed before diving into the topic, because they might not want to be a part of that conversation, Postelli said.

"I think it is always important when you are bringing up hard topics to ask for consent," Postelli said. "So, them holding signs is fine, but when they engage with other people, they should say, 'Hey, is it OK for you if I bring up something that might be a little bit hard?'"

Venyah said some students have blatantly expressed they did not agree with what they were doing. Some have escalated to accounts of physical violence - he said he has been hit and choked by people who did not like what he said. People have called the police on him as he was preaching the gospel on campus, he said.

The police used to try to put a stop to what he was doing, Venyah said, but now he feels his right to freedom of speech is more respected and more enforced.

"MSU, I believe, in general is legally tolerant of it now," Venyah said. "They used to try to stop us."

Within the last 10 years, he has seen more tolerance toward him preaching on campus. He would not agree if someone tried to stop him from speaking what he believed in, he said. It is unconstitutional, he said.

"A complaint is not a reason to violate the constitution," Venyah said. "Anyone can complain about something that they do not like, that does not mean it is invalid."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hate, extreme speech allowed at MSU despite push back from some

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Michigan State is wholly dedicated to freedom of speech, not just as a public institution, but as an institution of higher education," according to MSU's free speech website. "Here, ideas-not people-are meant to clash and to be evaluated based on their merits."

# data[].attributes.body
This is a national example of hate speech that occurred earlier in the year and it is be argued in court. The defense that members of the KKK are using is that it was freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. This idea that there's a limit to free speech is at the heart of a lawsuit targeting the organizers of last year's Unite the Right rally. That Charlottesville, Va., demonstration was staged by white nationalist organizations. An attack on counter-protesters ended up injuring dozens, and it killed one woman. Today, a judge holds the first hearing in this case. The white nationalist groups, including the KKK, say they were just exercising their right to free speech and are not responsible for the violence that broke out. Roberta Kaplan represents those who are suing the rally organizers. We asked her about that argument.

ROBERTA KAPLAN: Well, they are within their First Amendment rights to believe what they want to believe. And they are within their First Amendment rights to say what they want to say. If they had all come to Charlottesville, they hadn't planned violence and they had just paraded around town peacefully celebrating with a swastika, as offensive and reprehensible as I find that to be, they are protected in doing that. But our allegation in this complaint - and it's pretty detailed and comprehensive - is that's not what they did.

MARTIN: What did they do that was beyond their free-speech rights?

KAPLAN: So for months and months leading up to Charlottesville, they engaged in an enormous amount of communication, planning and coordination about things like what weapons to bring with them to Charlottesville, how to make it look like you're acting in self-defence when you're really committing violence. They actually, believe it or not, talked about using protesters as speed bumps, which is obviously tragic and horrific in light of what happened to Heather Heyer.

MARTIN: Heather Heyer was the young woman who lost her life that day.

KAPLAN: Correct. They talked about militaristic coordination and who would be leading and who would take directions. And then on August 11 and 12, that's exactly what happened. And then after it happened, they all celebrated what had happened as a success of their long-held plans. That's not free speech. That's a conspiracy.

MARTIN: Is there a precedent for what you're arguing?

KAPLAN: Yeah, there are precedents for these cases. So, first of all, the Justice Department was originally started, actually, after the Civil War to deal with white supremacy groups and the KKK in the South. The Justice Department itself has had a long history of bringing these kinds of actions. And on top of that, private groups have sought to shut down the KKK and other groups when this kind of violence has occurred.

MARTIN: So Richard Spencer, who is named in this suit, he's one of the country's leading white supremacists. He's tried to get this dismissed by arguing that it is an example of, quote, unquote, "lawfare," which is a phrase to mean suing people you disagree with in order to essentially bankrupt them into silence. Is that what you're doing?

KAPLAN: We are suing the defendants in this case on behalf of three people who were hit by the car that James Field drove into the crowd of protesters, two of whom had their legs completely smashed, destroyed and have legs that are full of metal pieces as a result of what was done in Charlottesville. This is not some kind of symbolic case. We want compensatory damages and justice for our clients, all of whom are injured by what happened.

MARTIN: So you don't have any motives that extend to undermining white supremacist groups writ large around the country?

KAPLAN: Well, we want to send a message that you can't do this. People are entitled to have their First Amendment beliefs in this country and to speak those beliefs, but what they're not allowed to do in this country is to plan, commit and then celebrate violence motivated by those beliefs.

MARTIN: Roberta Kaplan, along with co-counsel Karen Dunn, are representing 10 plaintiffs who are suing the organizers of the Unite the Right rally. Thanks so much for talking with us.

KAPLAN: Thank you very much. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawyers Sue White Supremacists Over Charlottesville Violence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/. RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater if there is no fire. This idea that there's a limit to free speech is at the heart of a lawsuit targeting the organizers of last year's Unite the Right rally.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Speech: Crash Course Government and Politics #25