Sojeong Lee
Journalism 400 Exam 1
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech with restrictions made by the court to protect the peace of society. These exceptions include any speech that is libel, obscenity or incites imminent violence and illegal activity. The government may intervene and take action against the students if the material of the publication or their conduct is considered unprotected speech.
The government may try to use fighting words as a justification for arresting the students by citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). The court ruled that words which “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace” are not protected by the First Amendment. The government may argue that the caption “Recruiters promote death, get rid of them” under the cartoon of a bleeding, …show more content…
It is unconstitutional to punish a person just because the content of the speech is disfavored, according to Texas v. Johnson (1989). The court said that “the function of free speech is to invite dispute” so the police officer cannot restrict speech because he disagrees with it. The article is expressing a viewpoint that may be offensive to some, but the article is not inciting any imminent violence or danger. The content of the article is considered a political hyperbole, which are not punishable as crimes because it is an expressive speech, not a threat. The article, including the cartoon and caption, is a hyperbole speech made to express a political point to show the opposition of military recruiters. Since the speech is not a direct threat to inflict harm on others, it passes the Brandenburg test from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), a case mentioned before. Since the speech is fully protected speech, the courts must show strict scrutiny and declare any restrictions
Journalism 400 Exam 1
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech with restrictions made by the court to protect the peace of society. These exceptions include any speech that is libel, obscenity or incites imminent violence and illegal activity. The government may intervene and take action against the students if the material of the publication or their conduct is considered unprotected speech.
The government may try to use fighting words as a justification for arresting the students by citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). The court ruled that words which “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace” are not protected by the First Amendment. The government may argue that the caption “Recruiters promote death, get rid of them” under the cartoon of a bleeding, …show more content…
It is unconstitutional to punish a person just because the content of the speech is disfavored, according to Texas v. Johnson (1989). The court said that “the function of free speech is to invite dispute” so the police officer cannot restrict speech because he disagrees with it. The article is expressing a viewpoint that may be offensive to some, but the article is not inciting any imminent violence or danger. The content of the article is considered a political hyperbole, which are not punishable as crimes because it is an expressive speech, not a threat. The article, including the cartoon and caption, is a hyperbole speech made to express a political point to show the opposition of military recruiters. Since the speech is not a direct threat to inflict harm on others, it passes the Brandenburg test from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), a case mentioned before. Since the speech is fully protected speech, the courts must show strict scrutiny and declare any restrictions