City V. Summum: Government Speech Analysis

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

Though the First Amendment nationally guarantees our right to free expression, the Fourteenth Amendment also champions our cause in the states by means of the due-process clause. The due-process clause states that "no state shall...deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law" (Wilson). Until 1925, it was legal for the states to pass legislation prohibiting such forms of protest as symbolic speech because the Supreme Court had previosly denied that the due-process clause made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. However, in the case Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court decided that freedom of speech and of the press implicated the "fundamental personal rights" protected by the due-process clause, and the states could no longer breach through legislation those freedoms guaranteed to each individual (Wilson). This case established the precedence that state laws involving speech violate the freedom of expression guarantees of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, no matter how offensive or repugnant some forms of expression may be, that expression has strong and definite constitutional protections that cannot be encroached by the national or state governments. To create an amendment to weaken our civil liberties constitutes a means to further destroy the representation of our national symbol - the flag.

So the need for more drastic, shock and awe type actions from people desiring to be heard on any particular matter has been brought to the forefront. This is where the Bill of Rights has drastically come into play. At this point the Supreme Court has to protect the freedoms without stripping Americans of their rights entirely but it also has to protect Americans from those who wish to do harm to others under the protection of freedom of speech or expression. Not only does the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech but also freedom of expression which is as equally controversial. By examining the First Amendment and the protections and exclusions it has provided over the years through three highly controversial cases, it will allow the reader some insight into the difficulties surrounding the protection of free speech. The cases that are to be examined are Snyder v. Phelps, Morse v. Frederick and Texas v. Johnson. All of these cases present a different freedom of speech or expression issue that was brought to the Supreme Court and therefore, set a standard for future rulings regarding that particular issue.

The war was the North against the South. They were fighting over state’s rights and whether or not the South should have them. The South preferred a non-federal government. Being run by the government means that they have no say in legislation, nor any privacy. The Confederate Flag was used to represent the South in this war and is a piece of vital history. Many places are banning the flag because it is considered to be racist by many people. I encountered an experience at the Sutherlin Mansion Museum in 2015 where I wanted to buy a Confederate Flag, but they couldn’t provide any because it was against the law. The cashier said that even if they did sell them, he would have to take me to the back where they were located because if on display, it may offend others. If I am at a Museum on the Civil War, this shouldn’t be offensive, or illegal. The flag is a piece of history. In the book “The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem”, John M. Coski writes, “If we must eliminate all “reminders of slavery”, wrote another retired officer, “why not raze the James River plantations, delete all references to slavery in the history books, or ban Uncle Tom’s Cabin?”(277). People believe that the flag only symbolizes slavery and want the flag removed because they find it offensive. The flag is a big part of our country’s history and ancestry background. We have the right to believe what we want to believe, but shouldn’t

This brought on the Supreme Court striking down all laws banning flag desecration in 1989. Justice Brennan wrote “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable (civilliberty website, n.d) One cannot simply ban or outlaw a person’s right to exercise their ideas publically because it goes against the majority or popular belief. Taking away ones freedom of speech, you then take away the voice of a nation. You don’t have to always agree with the words, ideas or views someone expresses but you must give them the right to say it without repercussions. We recite the pledge of allegiance, not fully understanding what it means. The last section of the pledge states “with liberty and justice for all”. (UsFlag.org, n.d) Which means, the freedom to live, speak and to carry on without fear or injustice. No matter the race, gender or ethnicity George Washington said it best, “if the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”(Washington, n.d line 31 ) This nation was built upon principles that we are all free. Free to live and exercise our rights to speak freely and protest as citizens without fear. The Constitution also allows one to peacefully

In Walker III v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015), the Supreme Court concerns itself with the constitutionality of a decision by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board (the DMV Board) to reject the specialty license plate designs submitted by SCV and its members, and the Court addresses possible violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Attorney Scott Keller appears for Walker, the petitioner, and attorney Roger George represents the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), the respondent. Four issues permeate the case: specialty license plates’ relevant form of speech; State control over the content of specialty license plates; specialty license plates as a limited public forum; and, ultimately, the potential violation of both the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “viewpoint neutrality.” In a divisive 5-4 decision, Justice Breyer delivers the Court’s opinion, while Justice Alito, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy, dissents, concerned with the Court’s interpretation of government speech and the precedent it sets.

The 1st amendment protects US citizens, both natural born and naturalized, from undue censorship by the state and federal government in the free speech clause. The 1st amendment is only compromised in the event of national security, which is supported in Schenk v. United States and affirmed in Abrams v. United States 250 U.S. 616 (1919). Government speech has been assumed in situations where government funding is involved, however, there has been an expectation of private speech in those areas as well. Private speech and government speech often exist in the same spheres, where government speech cannot prevail without trampling the other, and private speech cannot exist wholly without government permission where federal funding is found. An example of this is found in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, where the Court ruled that the University of Virginia’s refusal to fund student Rosenberger’s publication Wide Awake: A Christian’s Perspective to the University of Virginia was a violation of free speech. Despite the University being a federally and publically funded institution, private speech discussing religion is permitted in the same space as government speech, on the grounds of ensuring equality across the campus. The Court found that if the University was funding secular student magazines publications were being funded, it would only be equal if religious publications received funding. The Court ruled also that the funding of

In Walker III v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Supreme Court concerns itself with the constitutionality of a decision by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board (the DMV Board) to reject the specialty license plate designs submitted by the Sons of Confederate Veterans (the SCV) and its members, Accordingly, the case addresses matters pertaining to the First and Fourteenth Amendment. With attorney Scott Keller representing Walker—petitioner—and attorney Roger George representing the SCV—respondent—four issues surround the case: the type of speech expressed through specialty license plates; the State’s discriminatory power over its specialty license plate program; the creation of a limited public forum; and, ultimately,

According to the article, “1 and 5 Americans think Confederate Flag belong at government buildings: Poll,” on AL.com, written by Leada Gore, The Confederate flag is always a hot topic in Alabama. A recent poll shows, however, the display of the old South banner is a national issue as well. The Center for American Progress Action Fund recently polled 636 registered voters to determine if they thought Confederate flags should be removed from all government buildings. Of those polled, 64 percent said they were opposed to Confederate flags flying at government buildings. Twenty-one percent said they supported flying the Confederate flag at government-owned properties and a surprisingly high number- 15 percent- weren’t sure (AL.com). When you think of the

The flag of the United States is our national symbol and our most important symbol of all; it symbolizes our nation’s strength and pride. Due to its high values and symbolism, by 1932, forty-eight states had adopted the flag desecration laws to legally protect and restrict desecration of the flag of the United States. However, these flag desecration laws only lasted until 1989, because in 1989, in the Texas v Johnson case, the United States Supreme Court recognized that flag desecration as a form of symbolic political speech that is constitutionally protected by First Amendment and agreed that the “government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable”( ).

Texas v. Johnson was about a man named Gregory Lee Johnson who burned an American flag for his protest against the Reagan administration policies. Burning the flag brought up the question of what defines speech, and what covers it in the first amendment. Texas’s

Hate, feeding on the freedom of speech, manipulates the amendment. The issue of a Confederate flag, for example, is one of the heavily wielded issues. The Confederate flag symbolizes different things to different people. To some, it is the Southern heritage, and to others, it is the white supremacy. Despite the conflicts, the harms that the Confederate flag cause are real. Among African-Americans, 72% see the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism, and they are the real victims of the shameful history. In the period of slavery, they were treated as if they were animals, and to the day, they still suffer from the lasting effects of what the flag resembles under institutional racism. To them, each time a Confederate flag flies, it instills the stereotypes, discriminations, and the systematic oppressions toward the blacks in society. However, challenging the confederate flag is shut down by the first amendment, as it guarantees people’s rights express their views whether it be racist or not. The real question is, should the freedom of speech protect the ban of confederate flag?

There are two questions that this court must answer today; First, does Keller’s speech have First Amendment protections? Second, does the University of California, Delphi have the ability to restrict such speech? Keller argues that the university violated his First Amendment rights by attempting to restrict his expression of disfavored views. The university contends that Keller’s actions were disruptive to the learning environment, and thus suspended; not violating his rights to free speech.

In light of recent events, debate has sprung out over the implications of the Confederate States of America’s battle flag. One side strongly argues that it is a sign of intolerance, racism, and hatred. The other strongly disagrees that it is a sign of southern pride, heritage, and states’ rights. The rebel flag is often misconstrued as something hateful, but it still represented a system relying on slave labor and a confederacy that was against the union. The flag shouldn’t be used on official government facilities, but should still be available to the public as a way of exercising free speech rights.

There are many elements of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to address. The area of the Freedom of Speech applies to every aspect of our daily lives. An examination of this area shows us why there are protected and unprotected areas of speech: speeches and actions that have been debated throughout our nation’s history and why they are important and have such an impact on our individual lives and social activities today.