The Importance Of Freedom Of Speech By The First Amendment

Overtime the Supreme Court has carved out different categories of speech. The Courts have established some speech to be totally protected by the First Amendment, some speech to not be protected by the First Amendment, and some speech to be subjected to different tests and standards to determine whether or not they are protected by the First Amendment. There is sort of this set hierarchy of different classes of speech from that of which is most protected to that of which is least protected. Speech that is subject to the prohibition without violating the First Amendment is speech that is deemed to be absolutely lacking in any type of value. Basically, the Courts have determined that some speech is just valueless and contributes nothing to our …show more content…
California constitutionally allows the say of horrific and terrible offensive things as long as it’s not directed at one specific individual and said directly to their face. “Four-letter words, however, offensive are not per se excluded from First Amendment protection” (Justice Harlan [majority], Cohen v. California, 541). Greenberg did not use fighting words. The Supreme Court clearly laid out a two prong test to determine what speech would classify as valueless and be deemed “fighting words.” The first prong requires words to be said directly to the face of the individual. In order for Greenberg to be guilty of this there would have to be evidence that the president was home at the time the speech was given. However, there is no such evidence given to prove that the president was home during the rally outside of her PSU owned home. Furthermore, if the president was home Greenberg was giving a speech to a group of a hundred people and therefore the words would still not have been said directly to the president but instead the individuals who were present at the rally. As a result, the speech would not satisfy the first