Just for context We The People is high school program and debate competition evolving the constitution. I placed for my speech. I also wrote this speech by myself with good questions from my Gov. teacher.
1. Why have First Amendment rights been viewed as essential to the functioning of a free
society?
• In what ways have these rights been of particular importance to women and minorities?
• Although First Amendment rights are considered essential in a constitutional democracy,
it is sometimes argued that these rights must be limited. Under what circumstances, if
any, do you think limitations are justified? Explain your answer.
In quoting Frederick Douglas, “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker ”. I can say what I want when I want, and how I want. I can be a pagan and you can’t crucify me. I can peacefully protest for what I believe in, and you can’t arrest me. I can write articles about my views on social justice and politics and they won’t be taken down or filtered. I can give my signature to change the system and you can’t stop me.
Well, not all liberties are protected under the First Amendment. Press confidentiality limitations are made clear with the case Branzburg versus Hayes. Likewise, free speech rights are not absolute, in accordance with legislation created by the government, such as “clear and present danger”, threats, obscenities, and deformations that are libel. More parameters exist with “fighting words”, as in the case of Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire….
All of the statutes and limitations that have been altered and addressed are due to different time periods and the people in those time periods changing statutes and pushing boundaries. For example, Brower vs Hardwick in 1986.
The supreme court ruled that consenting adults don’t have the right to engage in sodomy in private, so that way there would be an upholding in previous Georgia law that was discriminatory towards homosexuals, but in 2003 Lawrence vs Texas overturned this rule, then further progression in the legalization in gay marriage with Obergfelle v Hodges in 2015…
There is a time and place to which everything can be addressed. With discussion over what laws local government makes, unjust laws, as seen through eyes of the public, have been dealt with in a civil approach. With formality, progress has been made toward approval or protest, but in recent times this has all changed. Protest has reached a new time where athletes in football and other sports have sparked major controversy to what may be considered the appropriate means of disagreement for what is occurring on the political spectrum. By kneeling during the national anthem for a crisis of general oppression to African Americans, athletes such as Colin Kaepernick can be view as disrespecting the value to the flag, no matter their intent to exercise the right to protest.
The idea that he is facing such extreme disrespect and hate speech from opposite views in hindering free speech out of fear. His taking of a knee is completely constitutional and shouldn’t be hindered. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Evelyn Beatrice
To maintain order, a process should be then followed where every citizen has a moment to debate a law that concerns them. Procedures do exist to permit our nation’s citizens to counter a law or regulation under “Time, place, and manner”. It is self-destructive for the citizens’ cause to go in contrast to laws of ordinance set in place to aid them. If there is not a set system of order, the chaos may then ensue.
You can look directly at protesting itself and how there’s an injustice that comes about with 1963 Edwards v. South Carolina, South Carolina arrested one hundred eighty-seven peaceful segregation protesters.
I respect the idea of Time place and manner but this is a new time, place, and manner with new ideas and new upcoming. For example, Roe vs Wade may seem like it’s only applicable for the 14th amendment, under equal protection acts, but it also adjacent to the first amendment because the idea of not allowing women to get abortions stems from our country’s religious background. The idea that women can’t control their own bodies and have secure medical records because of people’s religious beliefs is in violation. The idea that this wasn’t applicable till the 1970s shows that if not now, when?
Nonetheless, our approaches to freedom and upholding it are totally different, but we all agree that every American should have the rights in the first amendment. Our dialogue on these two polar opinions just displays how varied the voices are for what exactly is represented under the first amendment.