Freedom of Speech by Cynthia Ramirez https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji Lets learn about rights!! en-us 2018-04-03 17:04:20 UTC 2026-01-04 13:52:32 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/icons/File.png Supreme Court Case: cynthiar753 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248212572 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?]]> 2018-04-03 17:04:20 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248212572 Supreme Court Case: cynthiar753 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248212576 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?]]> 2018-04-03 17:04:20 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248212576 Supreme Court Case: cynthiar753 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248212578 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?

]]> 2018-04-03 17:04:20 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248212578 Modern Issues cynthiar753 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248212580
  • 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. 

    • ]]>     2018-04-03 17:04:20 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248212580     Origin cynthiar753 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248212581 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.]]> 2018-04-03 17:04:20 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248212581 The Wording & Meaning of the Right cynthiar753 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248212582 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

    ]]>     2018-04-03 17:04:20 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248212582     cynthiar753 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248223272 2018-04-03 17:25:42 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248223272 cynthiar753 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248223795 2018-04-03 17:26:59 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248223795 cynthiar753 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248225001 2018-04-03 17:29:31 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248225001 Modern Issues cynthiar753 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248964108 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. ]]> 2018-04-05 17:02:43 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248964108 Current Interpretation cynthiar753 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248968094
  • 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.

    ]]>     2018-04-05 17:11:51 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248968094     cynthiar753 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248972509 2018-04-05 17:21:26 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/248972509 Arguments of this freedom ashlynb602 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/250787764 -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]]>     2018-04-11 15:57:10 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/250787764     A clarifying Video ashlynb602 https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/250794619 2018-04-11 16:09:23 UTC https://padlet.com/cynthiar753/6is0yqbpumji/wish/250794619