Content Based V Content Neutral Speech : How Occupational Licensing Threatens First Amendment Protections Essay

ISSUE: Does having members who opt out of a union continue to pay agency fees violate the First Amendment to the Constitution?

I agree with the line of reasoning you are arguing here. Typically a business will limit what a person can say about that company, especially with the prevalence of social media. I think that while it is limiting your freedom of speech, you are correct in that an employer has a right to expect that of their employees. Many employers will not allow a person to use the workplace to promote their political or religious views. For example, you couldn't hand out fliers to your fellow employees inviting them to attend a political rally for a specific candidate or cause. You could do that on your own free time, but not in the workplace. That limits your freedoms as well. Why do you think an employer wouldn't allow that?

Employers that base employment decisions, including hiring and promotion, on protected class characteristics are engaging in disparate treatment. When they do so overtly and argue that it is necessary to limit a particular type of employment to people with specific protected class characteristics, this type of disparate treatment is termed a facially discriminator policy or practice. An important, but limited, defense is available to employers that adopt facially discriminatory requirement is legal. If an employer can show that a particular protected class characteristic is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the job in question, the facially discriminatory requirement is legal. According to the Title VII of the Civil Right Act,

The First Amendment gives the citizens of the United States their most important rights: the right to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, and the freedom of assembly. Over time these rights have worked themselves into the everyday lives of United States citizens. However, there are still places where our First Amendment rights may be compromised. In the school system, finding a balance of respect and freedom of speech and press is as difficult as learning out to tightrope walk. One wrong step and you could be compromising the learning environment of the entire student body.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is part of our countries Bill of Rights. The first amendment is perhaps the most important part of the U.S. Constitution because the amendment guarantees citizens freedom of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, amendment requires that there be a separation maintained between church and state.

In Walker III v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015), attorney Scott Keller argues on behalf of the petitioner—Walker III (Walker)—and attorney Roger George represents the respondent—Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). The case concerns the constitutionality of a decision made 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 addresses possible violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Four contentions surround the issue: the form of speech embodied by the specialty license plate program; State control over the content of specialty license plates; specialty license plates as a limited public forum; and, ultimately, the potential violation of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “viewpoint neutrality.” Justice Breyer delivers the opinion of the Court, affirming the plates as government speech. However, Justice Alito, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy, Justice Alito dissents, concerned with. the Court’s broad interpretation of government speech.

Facts: Plaintiffs Carl and Elaine Miles, owners and impresarios of “Blackie, The Talking Cat” brought a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the S.D. Georgia, challenging the constitutionality of the Augusta, GA, Business License Ordinance. They complained that the ordinance was inapplicable in their case “accepting contributions from pedestrian in the downtown Augusta area, who wanted to hear the cat speak “and that the ordinance violates the rights of speech. The Plaintiffs attacked the ordinance as being unconstitutional and overbroad in contravention of the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The United States of America seems to be protected by a very important historical document called the Constitution. Despite the fact that it was written and signed many years ago, the American people and their leaders still have faith in the Constitution. One of the major statements of the Constitution is the First Amendment, freedom of speech. Although it is difficult to decide what is offensive and what is not, it is clear to see that songs of rape, violence, bigotry, and songs containing four letter words are completely unnecessary for susceptible minds to acknowledge. It is reasonable to say that more people listen to music everyday and for that reason, music tends to be more influential. The American

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 first amendment protects the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression toward government. In this landmark case Colorado wants to give citizen an opportunity to make laws through ballots which violated the freedom of speech. In responds to the case, the American Constitutional Law Foundation challenged the constitution of the “six limitations” enforced by Colorado on the petitioning process. After the discussion in both trial and courts, the Supreme Court granted order to review three of the six original restrictions brought upon in order for people to

"Since our country’s establishment of the constitution, one of our greatest arguments and controversy is the exact impact of our first amendment. Literally, it 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.” It can be assumed this protects we the people of the united states from becoming a theocracy, as there can be no official religion, it protects us from having controlled propaganda, and protection by law to assemble, or group together in our privately created organizations. However, as lovely as it feels to have a physical document protecting these rights, many people will still argue that the first amendment means none of these things, partially due to their own alternative goals and ambitions.

Friedersdorf substantiates his argument against occupational licenses by referring to credible sources. He begins his article by noting the requirements to obtain a license as a home-entertainment installer

Everyone is born free in this world and those are only the situations in which they are born, that make one slave or the ruler. In spite of social status and the economic standing of a being everyone wants and should be allowed to express their views, feelings and ideas. It is in nature of humans to experience the wonders of the world and to have the urge to observe and think about the wonders and express the ideas in a certain ways. Another thing that is also certain about the nature of the people that different people look at the same thing in different ways. American constitution is the one that respects the people and about the views and ideas of the people and their right to live and express their ideas freely. The constitution that was made by our fathers not only discusses the issues that are pertaining on collective level, but also, about the common issues and concerns of the people and one of them is freedom of speech. It is also the right of every free person in this world to have freedom of speech and to have his own personal standing. Constitution of United States also considers the right of the people to play their part and have their own view about everything that is happening around them and gives them the right to express them. This paper is also focused on the issue of freedom of speech, but, is targeted to how this right is being guaranteed and exercised at workplaces.

In Augusta, Georgia the district court judge decided that the Miles family should pay $50 for a business license, in order to take Blackie the talking cat’s talents to the marketplace. According to Augusta business ordinance, there was no classification for speaking animals and instead it lists occupations, businesses and trades subject to the tax and amount to be paid. The conflict arises since blackie can speak for himself like a normal human being. The federal power rights to human beings should be respected. However blackie speaking talent does not make the cat a human being. According to amendment ten of the constitution, laws that have not been defined, that is, delegated or prohibited by the federal government may be formulated by states. Additionally the constitution may or may not provide protection in certain kinds of business. In our case, since miles business was not to harm or fraud the case would have prevailed in the federal aspect but since the constitution grants states to make rules then miles case did not prevail in Georgia.

As a citizen of California reaching adulthood and starting to reach a bigger role in society, I must know if freedom of speech is fine at its current state with you. I myself don’t have many strong beliefs but I’m always fascinated by those who do. I have researched the limitations on freedom of speech and I do agree that without them freedom of speech would be overused, even exploited, heavily to cause so much more issues among the topic. As of late, with the whole election causing a massive split between everyone, there’s been an influx in conflict with protests happening almost every day. Although these protests can lead to massive issues if they were to get violent, the peaceful once seem to be getting violent with these limitations on