More handpicked essays just for you.
Freedom of speech in the usa
An essay on first constitutional amendment of the freedom of speech
The right to freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Freedom of speech in the usa
For example, Pitts refers to the school board’s decision as an act of “intellectual vandalism.” Obviously, the word “vandalism” has an extremely negative connotation, and Pitts’ decision to describe the ruling this way causes the audience to view it as a true crime against students. Undoubtedly, much of Pitts’ audience is composed of parents, so the use of the word “vandalism” also garners many feelings of anger, as the majority of parents would be truly outraged if an act of vandalism such as this were committed against their own child. Even the title of the article describes the ruling as an “assault” on all students’ basic right to learn their nation’s history. Additionally, Pitts calls the ruling “stagnant, barren and antithetical to progress.”
Armband protesters suspended from school Everyone is aware of the first amendment which states that citizens should have free speech. In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the right was violated. What actually happened in the Tinker v. Des Moines case? There were a brother and sister named John and Mary Beth Tinker who went to a Des Moines school. The Tinkers went to school one day wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam war.
Recently, the use of controversial words has become a heavily debated topic and has gained international attention as seemingly truthful statements to some, cause insult to others. The Times article "Why 'Redskins' Is a Bad Word", by acclaimed linguist and professor John McWhortor, was published around the time the use of the word Redskin was being debated. In the article, McWhortor aims to clarify the condemnation of the word Redskin, by suggesting that the offence does not stem from the literal definition of such words, but instead the negative and often derogatory connotations the words have. McWhorter begins by introducing the recent discussions surrounding the use of the word Redskins, especially the actions taken by Californian schools
Rule: The Court held 5-4 that no the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing, at or across the street from a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting
Snyder’s refusal of a name change perpetuates the idea of a white man’s history and traditions being more valid than those of a Native American’s. In a recent poll, 79% of NFL fans said that they do not think the Redskins should change their name (“NFL Fan Poll”), despite the fact that 67% of Native Americans find the term “redskin” offensive (“Survey on Redskins Team Name”). This is problematic because it shows that while more than half on Native Americans find the term redskin offensive, the majority of NFL fans say they think the
First Amendment rights are guaranteed to all American citizens, but current free speech issues are testing Constitutional boundaries. Where must the line be drawn between free speech and infringement upon others’ rights? Is there some speech so cruel and so appalling that it does not merit protection? These issues have been raised by the recent activities of the Westboro Baptist Church. Based out of Topeka, Kansas[1], this small group of radicals is marked by their hateful views and their contempt for homosexuality. The Westboro Baptist Church has gained notoriety and sparked national outrage with their offensive acts, particularly by protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers.
Goodbye to Racial Mascots: California Bans the Use of “Redskins” in Public Schools Oct. 11 marks the victory of a statewide movement to prevent a racial slur from public use. On that day, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the ban on using “Redskins” as team names or mascots in public schools. The bill was well received by the majority, and many expected that this would set a good example for other states and the next generation. Without a doubt, the term in question — referring to the brutal crimes that British colonizers had done to Native Americans — is a racial slur that many Native Americans have long found offensive. However, when it comes to something as prestigious as the Washington football team or as intimate as a tradition of Amherst College.
In the New York Times article “The Harm in Free Speech”, Stanley Fish argues that it would make no difference if Jeremy Waldron’s book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” was titled “The Harm in Free Speech”. While providing an insightful review of the novel, Fish promotes the ideas depicted in the novel. Fish argues that American society is obsessed with using the First Amendment to say outwardly offensive statements. Fish asserts that “hate speech” is not simply expressing an opinion, but rather a way to belittle members of society a person deems unworthy. Americans hide behind the First Amendment and use it as a justification to spew hate speech.
Some school 's team mascot names have a history behind their name and the term means something distasteful. For example, in the Ute article it states “The Redskins term refers to a time in history when the king of England called for the scalping of Indians as proof of bounty.” Lots of Indigenous people refuse to say the term “Redskins” because it means the same thing as the N-word. This shows that it has a negative nuance for the Native community and it means something atrocious.
Over the past few years, the controversy over sports names or mascots has increasingly become an uproar. The main sports teams being targeted due to controversial mascots are programs having names that deal with Native Americans. Well known programs, such as, the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, and the Washington Redskins are just a few of the many teams being targeted due to controversial team names and/or mascots. Currently, the Redskins are receiving the most heat from racial groups. However, professional sport teams are not the only teams receiving negative remarks; there are well known colleges that are also receiving huge blows for racial symbols.
In which Fraser gave an inappropriate speech which contained perverted and inferred sexual words in his speech to try an get one of his friends into office, but got suspended and was no longer allowed to speak at graduation. According to document E it says “Bethel school district acted within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions on Fraser after his inappropriate speech”. This quote shows students are limited to what they can say and can't really speak their minds without restrictions therefore this shows that this case restricts the 1st amendment rights of students even though the U.S promotes freedom of speech but nevertheless there are others way to speak without using indecent words and also it was within a place of learning. The court was right to decide in favor of the school because “A high school assembly or classroom is no place for a sexuality explict monologue.(Doc. E)”it was well within parameters of the school to punish him for using obscene and indecent speech at a school event as mentioned in document E earlier “The first Amendment does not prevent the schools officials from determining them to permit a vulgar and lewd speech such as the respondent's would undermine the school’s basic educational
TRADEMARKS IN SPACE: Today with the commercialization of space travel some issues have become increasingly significant; some of such issues are obtaining rights, commercial licensing rights and enforcing rights in the outer space. The view of the scholars in the field is that it would be preferable to address these issues before problems emerge. As internet gave rise to challenges which would possibly have been anticipated if addressed before, the same way outer space is becoming a place where the trade has started and hence the issues of trademarks there and the nature of the legislations there need to be taken care of.
Trademark Dilution (Victoria Secrets Case) In today’s world consumers purchase products on the basis of brand name and trade symbol which accompanies the product, rather than buying the product on the basis of usefulness and quality. Therefore the protection of the trademark is important. Trademark dilution is a claim which owner of well-known trademark can make to prohibit others from using a mark which decreases or lowers the value or distinctiveness or defames the reputation and uniqueness of a well-known trademark. Trademark dilution is an aspect of trademark infringement.
Part IV overviews various trademark laws outside of the U.S. pertaining to protection of celebrity photographs in an attempt to contrast the reasoning used to pass such laws versus the U.S. denying the same protection. The paper concludes with a summary of the recommended expansion of trademark protection and challenges the counterarguments. I. U.S. Trademark Law A. Trademark Protection and the Lanham Act Trademarks are governed by both state and federal law. Originally, state common law provided the main source of protection for trademarks; however, in the late 1800s, the U.S. Congress enacted the first federal trademark law. Since then, federal trademark law has 3 consistently expanded, taking over much of the ground initially covered by state common law.
On the sidewalks of Rochester in the year 1942, Walter Chaplinsky was arrested for repeating ' You are a God damned racketeer' and 'a damned Fascist’ to a police officer. Chaplinsky’s statements violated a New Hampshire law prohibiting offensive, derisive, or annoying words or sounds said unto an individual or party in a public place. He appealed the decision of the District Court, and when it came to the Supreme Court, they came to a profound decision. Supreme Court Justice Murphy said there are certain words that could reasonably result in a fight or a breach of peace when uttered.
