First Amendment Rights: The Westboro Baptist Church

The Fourth Circuit contradicted the District Courts, concluding that Westboro’s statements were entitled to First Amendment protections on religious expression because those statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed

“By the mid nineties, the issue couldn’t exclude religious speakers from the list” The new look of religious cases allowed for people to go against the law of religious freedom. - pg 113 “But the stat denied a request heightened the differences between them.” The law of freedom of speech works for many terrible groups of people, making them question if they are actually doing the right thing. Support:

The Westboro Baptist Church member are proponents of extremist Christian ideology. Their first amendment rights should not be violated solely to shield others from the Church’s message. Therein the church should be permitted to protest soldier’s funerals. According to court records taken during the Snyder v. Phelps case, the protest held at Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder’s funeral was both legal and constitutional.

The Free Speech Coalition claims that these prohibitions are overbroad and vague and,

As the leader of the foundation, Greg Lukianoff has witnessed and fought many legal occasions of trigger warnings and microaggressions resulting in the masking of the freedom of speech. Coauthor Jonathan Haidt is a professor at New York University’s

The first amendment states that “Congress cannot enact laws limiting ”the freedom of speech or press.”’ (Kentucky Resolutions) Again, in short, this amendment is saying that the federal government is not able to pass a law that takes away someone’s right to speak their opinion. Contrary to this amendment, the Federal government did exactly the opposite of what the amendment said was allowed. The acts, passed by John Adams, take away the human right of speaking what is on the mind and using what they say to show them off as a threat.

While the freedom of speech is protected under the constitution, there are several types of speech that are restricted by the government. In general, if the speech is found to cause harm or threaten the safety of the public, it is restricted. According to Oliver Wendell Holmes, “a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent.” (Volokh, E., 2015). There are restrictions placed on fighting words, defamation, threats, and false statements of

I will attempt to justify that John Stuart Mills approach to the argument of Freedom of Speech is the most valid, and the only instance where expression should be limited is where it causes an immediate harm or violation to the rights of others. I believe that expression should be limited when it causes harm to others or violates their rights. This view coincides with J.S Mill’s “Harm Principle”. I do not believe that hate speech should be prohibited as it merely

In my interpretation of the First Amendment, the rights of the people to freely express their opinions, even if unpopular, is clearly protected. Specifically, hate speech is not clearly defined and may differ between people. Individuals and groups can disagree on if specific issues may be considered hateful. Advocates of, what some may consider as hate speech, will likely disagree that their opinions on an issue would be considered hate speech. Protecting all speech, including hate speech, should only imply that the government is following the first amendment to not interfere or be prejudice against anyone expressing their opinions if done so with regard to other laws.

While in the Court of Appeals, Phelps’s argument was that the First Amendment protected their judgment. Court of Appeals agreed to Westboro’s primary argument that the church was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the First Amendment protects Westboro’s speech. The Court says the picket signs were also protected under the First Amendment, because the statements deal with public concern. The jury could not find Westboro

Censorship of The First Amendment This paper will discuss how censorship denies citizens of the United States our full rights as delineated in the First Amendment. It will outline how and why the first amendment was created and included in the Constitution of the United States of America. This paper will also define censorship, discuss a select few legal cases surrounding freedom of speech and censorship as well as provide national and local examples of censorship.

It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker,’ Roberts said.” This shows how as a father, Albert Snyder must have felt devastated because of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church. In the end, the Phelpses actually ended up winning this case because of the 1st Amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This means that the Phelpses had the right to protest at his son’s funeral which is why they won the case against Albert

Derek Bok and Charles Lawrence both write about free speech and its effect on the community. In “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, Derek Bok poses a discussion for the changing rules on a school campus in an effort to combat racist speech. Charles Lawrence’s article, “On Racist Speech” presents a detailed view on the history, effect and how to fix racist speech rather than give away control. In comparison, both articles broach the subject of racist speech, but Bok’s uses weak reasoning and analysis, whereas Lawrence's use of inductive and deductive reasoning, rhetorical appeals and fallacies make his the stronger article. David Bok’s reasoning for how racist speech can be solved is flawed.

Legislators in California are reviewing the issue of hate speech with the possibility of a new bill. It is bringing about considerable discussion among lawyers. The Supreme Court held that some things by their very nature are considered outside the boundaries of what the First Amendment meant. Justice Potter Stewart’s remark is often quoted as defining hate speech, originally made about obscenity, that it is something we might not know exactly but “we know it when we see it.” California is looking at making the symbol of the noose a hate symbol, part of the designation of hate speech and a crime with a penalty under the State’s Penal Code.

The idea of free speech on college campuses and the complications of it stem from those on campuses expressing views that don’t align with popular views. Implications for students who use the idea of free speech as a method for hateful actions and comments should be reprimanded, but the question remains as to whether schools should enforce tougher limitations. The freedom of speech on college campus expands to the freedoms of religion, assembly, press, and protest as well. Freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views. Removing freedoms of speech and expression have consequences deeper than surface issues.