A public university has instituted a rule that requires all instructors to use “trigger warnings” regarding the introduction of explicit and triggering materials used for lectures, discussions, and homework assignments. “Instructors are required to offer appropriate warning and accommodation regarding the introduction” of subjects such as sexual assault and any depiction of sexual violence, graphic images of extreme violence, mutilation, mayhem, gore, and graphic images from any genocide including the Holocaust. Instructors who do not comply with these rules will be subject to discipline by the University. The punishments consist of sensitivity training, suspension, forced apologies to students, and termination. Failure to submit to punishments will result in automatic termination. Professor Duane is charged by the school because he has violated the school policy by leading a discussion on sexual assault without providing an appropriate trigger warning.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Are the words used by professor Duane’s discussion of sexual assault creating a clear and present danger? Was the …show more content…
United States (1919) set during World War I, Schenck mailed pamphlets to draftees which contained anti-war sentiments. Justice Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, wrote: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." The Court ruled that during wartime, they take certain speech in a context to which it matches the state of the country. While, during peacetime, individuals are able to exercise their freedom of speech more freely. The setting and the circumstance of the country when Schenck exercised his words was during wartime. Therefore, it is deemed that his expression is not protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment which created clear and present
QUESTION PRESENTED
Are the words used by professor Duane’s discussion of sexual assault creating a clear and present danger? Was the …show more content…
United States (1919) set during World War I, Schenck mailed pamphlets to draftees which contained anti-war sentiments. Justice Holmes, speaking for a unanimous Court, wrote: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." The Court ruled that during wartime, they take certain speech in a context to which it matches the state of the country. While, during peacetime, individuals are able to exercise their freedom of speech more freely. The setting and the circumstance of the country when Schenck exercised his words was during wartime. Therefore, it is deemed that his expression is not protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment which created clear and present