Freedom Of Speech One's Own Ideas example essay topic

Freedom of Speech Meredith Kerr Charles W. Locked. S. History 121-039-27-99 Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for just simply speaking one's mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one's mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one's own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower's belief will be stronger.

The words sound so simple, but without them the world would bee a very different place. Without the right to speak freely one would not be able to debt, nor would one be able to receive full coverage on world issues. There would be no interesting newspapers, no free religion and no free thoughts. This amendment seems so simple but, the boundaries of which issues and incidents are covered are so complex and varied.

What is legal and illegal? What can be said and cannot be said? Does this amendment include spoken word only or does it include action also? What, if any, limits should be put to this amendment? As long as the government has existed, people have battled over censorship.

Censorship takes on all different shapes and forms: banning of books, television guidelines, laws that curb specific types of speech, and imprisonment or even death for openly speaking. For example, in sixteenth century England, a loyal subject of Henry VII was imprisoned for saying, "I like not the proceedings of this realm". 1 In earlier times this would have been punishable by death for treason. The need for freedom of speech was first brought up in Massachusetts Body of Liberties in 1641.

After the Revolutionary War in America, many states recommend that free speech be put in the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, freedom of speech was written into the Bill of Rights and was ratified in 1791. A few years after the First Amendment was ratified, the government passed the Sedition Act of 1798. This was to help prevent resistance or rebellion against the government.

It also made it illegal to print, write or say "any false, scandalous and malicious" things against the government. One person was convicted under the act for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice". 2 This was never challenged by the Democratic-Republicans because of the Federalist-dominated the court rule. The act eventually ended the Federalists in 1800 and was destroyed itself. There was no other sedition law passed before 1917. Between 1800 and 1917, the individual states placed more restrictions on the freedom of speech than did the Federal government.

There was a lot of trouble between groups trying to form work unions and picketers. The unions often tried to challenge the boundaries of speech and actions. They said picketing was protected speech. Their business leaders saw it as coercive actions. The courts routinely supported the business leaders and issued injunctions, orders prohibiting a specified action to prevent union pickets. Slaves also fell outside the boundaries of the protected speech.

In the south freely speaking about slavery was frowned upon. They would also censor mail to make sure no abolitionist materials were being shipped to the south. In the 1830's pro-slavery people convinced the government to stop taking petitions against slavery. In 1844 Congress was forced to repeal this statement because of the anti-slavery engagement with denial of free speech and petition. During World War I the only way the government could suppress criticism of the war was to pass the Espionage Act of 19173. This was done to try and stop "willfully utter, print, write, or publishing and disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of the government of the United States".

. Over 2,000 citizens were convicted under this act. This law was repeatedly challenges and for the first time the Supreme Court heard cases on which they upheld this law. After World War I, the Court became very involved with trying to find and set the boundaries for free speech. There are many types of speech.

There is Pure speech, which is only spoken word, such as church, debts, and meetings. This form falls under the boundaries of the first amendment. Speech-plus is speech with actions, like protest, marches and picketing. Generally, actions are not as protected as pure speech.

Thirdly, there is symbolic speech. It conveys its own message without words. This is known as "expressive conduct". The Supreme Court says, "We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled " speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea"4.

Some " expressive conduct" is protected by the First Amendment and some isn't. Burning draft cards was decidedly not protected within the First Amendment. The draft was " necessary to legitimate government purpose of raising an army" said the Supreme Court. Thus flag burning was protected. Two of the court cases that pertain directly with issues discussed are Texas vs. Johnson case and Stanley vs. Georgia.

Both of these cases were found to be unconstitutional. In Texas vs. Johnson, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as part of a political protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention. Under Texas law no one should "desecrate" ones flag in a way that " the actor knows will seriously offend " anyone other than oneself. Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag. The Supreme Court said the Texas law violated the First Amendment, "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 of disagreeable"5. Not long after the Johnson trial, Congress passed a Flag Protection Act of 1989, which dealt with the desecration of the flag whether or not any bystanders took offense.

Protesters burnt flags on the U.S. Capitol steps in response. Soon the act was deemed unconstitutional because it punished anyone who "knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, ... or tramples upon any flag"6. The court said that those terms did not allow anyone to show disrespect for any flag, not the actual act of burning a flag. Therefore, the Court punished the message intended not the action. Government cannot force a person to not speak, but it cannot force a person to speak either. The government cannot make one speak something that is against one's beliefs and neither can they force one to recant one's beliefs after they have been stated.

Some issues that fall outside of the free speech boundaries are obscenity, defamation, fight words, commercial speech, speech in special places and speech that leads to illegal action. Obscenity or profane fall outside the boundaries of the First Amendment. This is defined as anything that depicts sex or nudity an a manner that infringes on one's decency standards. The one thing the courts do allow is the possession of obscene material in one's own home. In 1989, the courts decided material in one's own home. In 1989, the courts decided that "dial-a-porn" (sex over the phone) was constitutional.

Dancing nude is an expression of one's body, but it was made unconstitutional in 1991. Justice Antonin Scalia argued that a law in Indiana was not focused on nude dancing since the club in question only allowed adults to enter. Scalia said: The purpose of Indiana's nudity law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into the Hoosier dome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd. 7 Defamation is also not protected. Slander is only considered as defamation when spoken; libel is defamation through writing. An example is if a newspaper printed false information on a well reputation of that person.

That person could sue for libel. A sure fire defense in a defamation trial is always telling the truth. This also falls under freedom of press, books, magazines, and newspapers: most trials fall under this category. Some say fighting words such as ethnic slurs should not be protected under the First Amendment. Being politically correct is a big issue on college campuses because a lot of them have adopted policies that do not allow these kinds of fighting words to be said.

Many say this is a form of censorship, and censorship is unconstitutional. Oris it? Should people be able to choose for themselves? Oliver Wendell Holmes said: Words can be weapons... the question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. 8 The basic idea on the Freedom of Speech is counteract whatever one says or does. With the Nazi march in 1977, instead of protesting, have an anti- Nazi march.

The most vulnerable people will pave the road for the speech laws. Ku Klux Klan marches are protected as well as civil rights, Gay and Lesbian marches. There are many ways to interpret the First Amendment, but as long as one used good sense and can justify ones' actions then there would be a lot less conflicts. Protest and fight back only when necessary and not when someone offends someone for petty little criticisms. Use common sense and remember the harder one makes it on another, it makes it just as hard for oneself. As proven over and over History does repeat and the heated debt on the boundaries of this amendment will continue until the end of time.