We the People - Question 1 -- Freedom of Speech

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive it disagreeable.” -Justice William Brennan’

Texas v Johnson (1989) where the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag political protest is protected under the first amendment

Brennan’s view - Agreeing

Thinks that the first amendment protects unpopular or dissenting views. Allowing the government to suppress offensive speech could lead to censorship and undermine democratic

Thinks is also brings a Market place of ideas, it allows for open debate even when the ideas are controversial or offensive

First Amendment

The part of the Constitution that protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition

Hate Speech

Speech that offends, threatens, or insults individual based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other traits

Censorship

The suppression or prohibitions of speech, communication, or information by the government or other authority

Arguments for allowing universities to restrict harmful expression

Universities have a responsibility to make a safe campus and environment for all students. And if there is speech that is discriminating and making students feel unsafe and disrupting their education, the speech should be restricted.

Universities may restrict speech if it gets to a level of harassment or an atmosphere of discrimination especially If there is speech incites violence or targets vulnerable groups

Argument against restricting expression of Universities

If the speech in offensive then the school can’t restrict it, just because they don’t like what they are saying. Restricting speech could violate students rights to freely express their views. Also these opinions and speech, can lead to important discussions and limit the development of critical thinking. There is a difference between harmful speech and controversial speech.

Healy v. James (1972)

Supreme Court ruled that public universities cannot deny recognition to student groups based ion their political views, affirming the importance of free speech on college campuses.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Districts (1969)

the Court upheld students rights to wear black arms bands in protest of the Vietnam War, emphasizing that student do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolmate.”

Schenck v United States (1919)

“Clear and present danger” test, which allows for the destruction of speech if it created a significant and immediate threat to public safety.

Metal v. Tam (2017) - supporting free speech

The court ruled that the government cannot prohibit trademarks that may be seen as offensive or derogatory, reaffirming that protection of offensive or derogatory, reaffirming the protection of offensive speech under the first amendment.

Snyder v. Phelps (2011) - Restriction on speech

The Court upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket military funerals with offensive signs, noting that even hateful speech on public issues is protected under the first amendment.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Established the imminent lawless action test, which allows fir the restriction of speech only tif it is likely to incite immediate illegal action or violence

First amendment (1791)

Protects freedom of speech from government infringement, ensuring individuals can express ideas without government suppression, even if those ideas are unpopular or offensive

Free speech Clause

The first amendment prohibits government restrictions on the expression of ideas, especially those concerning political and social issues.

Social media and free speech

the rise of social media has created new challenges in applying the first amendment , as private platsforms have the power to moderate

Hate Speech Laws

discussions explore whether stronger restrictions should be imposed to limit speech that incites hate or violence against marginalized group