Free Speech Analysis

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Free Speech Analysis
Introduction 1
Freedom of speech constitutes the tradition of America and forbids the persecution of individuals on the basis of their political beliefs or religion. Practical speaking, the US has penalized people because of some ideas they expressed. The punishments were more prominent during a war and involved deportation or jailing of the offenders. Such practices present controversies as far as the First Amendment is concerned, (Thibodeaux, 581). Contrary to the Amendments, there have been limits on free speech in the US. These limits are continuously being adjusted with the change in social values. These adjustments mean that one has to be vigilant when expressing their speech at certain times. The places at which such opinions are expressed also matter a lot. This is because being too careless with words can cost one greatly.
Introduction 2
The first amendment regarding the United States constitution presents the right to free speech. This amendment protects the media contents from being censored or regulated.it is not clear whether or not everybody follows or alters free speech into something else. Ideally, the free expression means the ability to deliver a sentiment in public places. Therefore any restraint on free speech translates to violating the first amendment. There are several controversies surrounding the limits that have been imposed on free speech, (Thibodeaux, 582). People have wondered as to whether or not certain ideas exist that are not necessary.

Several individuals and organizations have raised claims about people abusing the civil rights. This has led to the first amendment being challenged in several court cases. Since these complaints are mainly claims with no solid evidence, the limits on free speech are not necessary.
The court believed that the school’s sanction went against the respondent’s rights to free speech as dictated by the first amendment. The decision made by the school was unconstitutional and overload. Also removing the respondent’s name from the speaker list was did not serve as sanction according to the fourteenth amendment. In the case in a court of law, it was a proven fact that determining whether there was disruption from the words uttered, (Thibodeaux, 586). The school administration is required to determine the kinds of conducts that are not consistent with the educational mission of their school. This is particularly valid as the school administrations assertions cannot be accepted without questions. In today’s world, the lewd speech would be treated in a different way. This is because the case relied heavily on the first amendment which has ever since undergone several adjustments. Some provisions have already been removed and replaced with others. The decision-making process today has greatly changed as well as the punishments, (Johnson, 596). Media messages are not under so much control as before.
The two case are related in many ways. First, they are both based on claims by the school administrator. Looking at the two cases, there is no solid evidence indicating that the incidences caused disruption to the student. That is to say, the administrators did not specify the form of disruption that the messages caused. Next, the manners in which the school administrators handled the two cases violated the constituted. In the first case, the student’s name was removed from the list of graduation list and was suspended. In the second case, the respondent was sent home. These actions are illegal since there were no written rules involved. Legal precedent allows schools to punish students breaking a written rule. Also in these two cases, the judges did not blindly accept claims without thorough questioning. Claims can mean to be concrete but when backed up by actual prove become invalid. Finally, the two cases relied heavily on the civil rights granted by the first amendment. This amendment seeks to protect the rights of individuals as far as free speech is concerned. Punishments are granted to those found to have violated the rights of other people. This is similar to a school situation, (Thibodeaux, 582).
The anti-war T-shirt presents a serious case for the court to decide. This case is based a possible violation of a right to free speech. The fact that it involves a student makes it different. The court should consider several things when making a decision regarding this case. First, a student was sent home from school due to claims that the Respondent is disrupting the school. The first mistake the school has made is disciplining this student without a written law. This makes the decision illegal as far as the provisions of legal precedent are concerned. Also, the school cannot establish the actual disruption that emerged as a result of the student wearing the t-shirt, (Thibodeaux, 582). For example, there was no instance of the educatees causing problems through fighting over the message communicated in the T-shirt. It was strongly indicated that the school’s officials reacted to the incidence because they did not agree with the message communicated by the t-shirt. This is true because when pressed, the only thing they could say was that it would encourage terrorism. Generally, there was no solid proof for the case to rule in favor of the school officials. Court cases rule after careful analysis of the evidence provided.
Freedom of creativity remains to be part of free speech and should hardly give into social responsibility. The only time creative freedom should be denied is when it involves sedition and anarchy. These two incidences can mess up with the freedom of the whole nation. People’s response to authority changes due to utterances such as hate speech. Many people tend to rebel to authority due to the way it acts with some loving it while others hating it depending on how it handles such cases. If hate mongers are punished, then the offenders will fear authority, (Johnson, 596). Such individuals can then take actions that disrupt the peace of others. Similarly, anarchy can negatively influence the society by promoting disorder and confusion. According to Ehrenreich, most of the contents of the song do not prove that it is dangerous. For instance, a line like “Die, Die, Die pig” without a doubt is a strong speech but again the constitution serves to protect the strong language. Also, the Supreme Court’s ruling indicates that it is not a crime to use words like “Kike.” Some utterances have to be redefined at the SC, (Johnson, 597).
The federal communications commission (FCC) which regulates the broadcast media is too restrictive about it. The First Amendment was established as a result of the limited freedom that existent regarding freedom of speech. The amendment allows freedom of expression but with several constraints put on the right, (Johnson, 597). But the FCC dictates the things that can be communicated on air. It has become mandatory for broadcast station to seek permission before utilizing the airwaves. Failure to attend to the “public interest” is punishable by fine or shout down. This manner of operation discourages media houses to broadcast their ideas. It tends to put a limit on what can or cannot be said. This is not what freedom of expression or speech means. This is simply dictating people and their ideas. This is simply instilling fear in people.
As explained by Waldmeir, there are two sides to “the do-not-call-registry”. First, there are these advertisers who are permitted to air their wares. But the consumers are not wrong either when they decide to reject the wares. This matter presents a test as far as the future of collective free speech is concerned. The extent of the government’s protection of the consumers is determined in this case, (Johnson, 597). It is even more confusing since the government is responsible for protecting every American of which the advertisers are among. One category of people beliefs that the ruling was far as the government was interested in blocking commercial calls only and not charitable appeals. The argument insisted that it was wrong for the government to single out any sales pitch. On the other hand, it was argued that enforcing a ban on all solicitation will restrict speech.
War remains to be a very serious issue irrespective of the countries or nations participating it. Therefore matters surrounding it has to be considered carefully. Even thinking about it, thorough research has to be carried out, (Thibodeaux, 585). The reason for it must be very convincing and clear. This is because there are times when national officials engage in wars for their own selfish interests. But the aftermath of it affects the civilians even most. For this matter, citizens, in this case, Americans should not be restricted when it comes to free speech about war, (Thibodeaux, 583). War means different things to different people altogether. Even within the same country, some individuals tend to be affected more than the rest. This, therefore, makes it necessary for such people to express their ideas about it. Some of these ideas, when taken into consideration, can save the nation from a great lot of trouble.
The case arising from dismissing a scout’s leader was received with mixed reaction. According to Johnson who happened to be a lawyer in the case, this decision by the scouts was just not right. He argued that the discrimination was based on status. Therefore it was valid to enforce anti-discrimination laws. This is because scouts is an example of a voluntary group. Also, the scout’s existence is not based on anti-gay beliefs, (Johnson, 597). A group may lack an anti-gay agenda but still view homosexual behavior as being wrong. The example he gave was of churches that discourage homosexual activity but encourage equal treatment of gays. The Boy Scout is basically trying to survive like any other group. Choosing a different approach to express their views does in no way imply that they cannot take a side of moral issues. The right to have moral position belongs to everyone.
In conclusion, the freedom of speech is a vital matter as far as the culture of America is concerned. There are various issues surrounding it. On one hand, the First Amendment seeks to protect the right to free speech, (Johnson, 597). On the other hand, limits continue to be imposed on the freedom of speech. There seems to some confusion when it comes to following the first amendment. No wonder several cases have ended up in court either because people believe their rights are violated or because others believe that certain individuals are misquoting the amendment, (Thibodeaux, 580). Therefore one needs to be cautious when exercising their civil rights even though the constant adjustments to limits are uncalled for.
Work cited
Johnson, Steffen. “A Case The Scouts Had To Win.”
Thibodeaux, Therese. Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser.