On February 7, 2016, 111.9 million TV viewers tuned in to watch Super Bowl 50; this estimate includes partial and full viewing of the game. Not surprisingly, the viewership peaked to 115. 5 million during the halftime show featuring Coldplay, Beyoncé, and Bruno Mars. The performance garnered different reactions from viewers and broadcast commentators. Many speculated over Beyoncé’s choice of costume and the costume choice for her backup dancers. But before the Super Bowl even took place, Beyoncé was gaining attention due to her release of her music video for the song, “Formation”. The music video paid odes to Hurricane Katrina, Black Lives Matter and more. Her performance at the Super Bowl didn’t include all of these odes specifically, but
…show more content…
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the three high school students wearing black armbands in protest against the Vietnam War. This case involved students’ rights to free speech, specifically, symbolic speech. The Iowa teenagers still wore the armbands after school authorities adopted a regulation banning them. Although the students’ protest was conducted in a silent and unobtrusive manner, the school still suspended these students, hence the students decision to pursue legal action; they believed school authorities had violated their rights to free speech. The lower courts ruled in favor of the school, however, the Supreme Court proved triumphant for the students. Justice Fortas provided a written response of their reasoning, “students’ wearing armbands had not created any disorder or disturbance, and that the mere “fear of a disturbance” could not justify the regulation at issue.” It was also noted that since students were previously allowed to wear other symbols in support of political campaigns, that it was not constitutionally permissible to target a specific viewpoint on a singular …show more content…
Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled that the armbands were a separate type of speech than the people they were representing. They also stated that, “Students don’t shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates.” The Supreme Court said that to suppress the students’ rights the school would have to prove that the students’ actions would “materially and substantially interfere” with the regular school day. The case, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie set the precedent for cases similar to it. Former member of the Supreme Court, Justice Murphy, had his say in what was allowed under the First Amendment and what crossed the line. He stated, “
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those, which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Despite the circumtances and back and forth disputes between the National Socialist Party of America(Nazis) and the Village of Skokie, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Nazis because they stood behind the First
Supreme Court ruled in favor of the three high school students wearing black armbands in protest against the Vietnam War. This case involved students’ rights to free speech, specifically, symbolic speech. The Iowa teenagers still wore the armbands after school authorities adopted a regulation banning them. Although the students’ protest was conducted in a silent and unobtrusive manner, the school still suspended these students, hence the students decision to pursue legal action; they believed school authorities had violated their rights to free speech. The lower courts ruled in favor of the school, however, the Supreme Court proved triumphant for the students. Justice Fortas provided a written response of their reasoning, “students’ wearing armbands had not created any disorder or disturbance, and that the mere “fear of a disturbance” could not justify the regulation at issue.” It was also noted that since students were previously allowed to wear other symbols in support of political campaigns, that it was not constitutionally permissible to target a specific viewpoint on a singular …show more content…
Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled that the armbands were a separate type of speech than the people they were representing. They also stated that, “Students don’t shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates.” The Supreme Court said that to suppress the students’ rights the school would have to prove that the students’ actions would “materially and substantially interfere” with the regular school day. The case, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie set the precedent for cases similar to it. Former member of the Supreme Court, Justice Murphy, had his say in what was allowed under the First Amendment and what crossed the line. He stated, “
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those, which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Despite the circumtances and back and forth disputes between the National Socialist Party of America(Nazis) and the Village of Skokie, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Nazis because they stood behind the First