He was arrested because the town had a law where one could not stand in a public street and scream at others in insulting manner.
While it is tempting to understand why Walter Chaplinsky was arrested and most people can understand the annoyance his speech must have caused, it was a law that should have been repealed.
Freedom of speech is such a fundamental right ingrained for more than 250 years that it needs to be protected even when the majority of listeners do not like or agree with what is being said.
Another case, in 1952 brings to light a different issue with regards to freedom of speech. In that case the leader of a white supremacy group was arrested for distributing literature claiming that the Negro race lacked virtue and other important characteristics.
While freedom of speech should be protected, it is also important not to allow hate filled speeches to be distributed in writing that are filled with non-provable information that could ultimately harm a group of people because it may be taken as fact.
The Ultimate Decision
Case law on students' freedom of speech reveals a limited but constitutional precedent for hate speech regulations within the academic environment. Regulations restricting other forms of student speech have been upheld under the special characteristics argument, which emphasizes universities' liabilities as learning institutions. Under this argument, students are considered captive audiences, thus universities can legally act to avoid disruptions to the educational environment, which hate speech can do (Russell, 1997)."
As much as most individuals will agree that certain speech is hurtful to others society by and large has the ability to correct itself by ignoring or shunning those who insist on voicing opinions that are unpopular or hateful and college students are capable of the same shunning which in turn brings pressure to the speech giver to cease and desist.
We cannot pick and choose which part of the...
Regulating or banning freedom of speech on campus attempts to remove their right and ability to hear different opinions which is part of what being in college is about. While some of the voiced opinions may be hurtful and hateful toward another group of individuals the right to speak those opinions must be reserved and protected.
Across the nation colleges are wrestling with free speech question. Do they step in and regulate what can and cannot be said on their campus or do they step back and hope the students are able to use societal pressure to do the job? It is a question that has been tested in courts across the nation (Goodman, 1989).
Regulating or banning speech is something that is being done consistently lately and while it does protect it also hides the "enemy" from view.
For college campuses to regulate or ban speech they effectively drive into hiding the very people that we need to be leery of. If they are forbidden to speak their minds how do others know their feelings and how do they make informed decisions about who to associate with and how to combat hate? It is important that with the exception of threats, free speech be allowed on campus so that the constitution is protected, students can continue to grow in their ability to ascertain fact from fiction and in the end it will be clear who has narrow minded views and who is open minded, so that individuals can choose their alliances and friendships based on knowing where people stand.
Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire 1942.
Taking a Position on a Constitutional Issue '
Goodman, Laura (1989) Laura L. Goodman, Shacking Up with the First Amendment, 64 IND. L.J. 716 (1989).
Hinds deCourcey Michael. A Campus Case, Speech or Harassment. Taking a Position on a Constitutional Issue.
The documents we provide are to be used as a sample, template, outline, guideline in helping you write your own paper, not to be used for academic credit. All users must abide by our "Student Honor Code" or you will be restricted access to our website.
Free Speech Rights of College and University Faculty This is a paper that outlines Free Speech Rights issues at academic institutions and argues why it is important to preserve it. It has 16 sources. The freedom of speech is something that has to be preserved no matter what the medium of communication may be, and this is because members of society may be greatly disadvantaged if exceptions are made. As compared to the
Hate Speech on Campus Colleges and universities have always portrayed themselves as the bastions of free speech and expression. However, in the growing diversity of college communities, more universities struggle to maintain the balance between protecting free speech and providing a welcoming learning environment for all its constituents. As a result, many campuses have initiated speech codes, intended to protect people and groups from hate speech, which is often accompanied by violence.
After the initial clash, police arrested Elton Cox and charged him with "disturbing the peace," (the Ovex Project, "Cox v. Louisiana"). In 1965, the Court decided that none of the student's activities were criminal. They were rightfully engaging in their right to free speech. However, cases like the 1966 decision of the Adderley v. Florida case (the Oyex Project, "Adderley v. Florida"), represented the unsupportive view of the Court towards
Student Searches, Free Speech & Expression, and Privacy in the Wired Age Student searches and in-school discipline for off-campus conduct Free Speech and Expression on and off campus Privacy in the wired age on and off campus. (Facebook, twitter, myspace, blogs, cellphones) What are a students' constitutional rights when it comes to searches and seizures, on and off campus discipline, free speech, expression, and privacy in the wired age when on and off campus?
Delgado further argues, Rules against hate speech, homophobic remarks and misogyny serve both symbolic and institutional values... It has been argued that such prohibitions operate in derogation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, but that amendment already is subject to dozens of exceptions -- libel, defamation, words of conspiracy or threat, disrespectful words uttered to a judge or police officer, irrelevant or untrue words spoken in a
speech of a public institution's faculty member to be protected under the Pickering/Connickline of cases, what criteria must be satisfied? Do these criteria suitably balance the interests of faculty members and the institution in the higher education context? There are really two key principles that must be satisfied. The first is that the court determines whether the speech in question hinges on a matter of public concern. If it does,