How Far is too Far

     The 1st Amendment of this countries constitution allows the right to freedom of speech, but just how free is it? This Amendment guarantees the freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and right to petition.  It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practises. It prohibits the congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely, even though the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause limits government regulation of private speech, it does not restrict the government when the government speaks for itself. For example, if the government allows private groups to hold rallies in a public park, it may not exclude a white supremacist rally solely because it disagrees with the rally’s message according to Cornell Law School.
   
     Protests are the epitome of free speech. Many gather to protest for what they believe is true. This is where freedom of speech and, how far does freedom last, comes into play. Freedom can only go so far in the terms of this nations government.  

     The Unite the Right Rally took place in Charlottesville Virginia, on August 12. Hundreds of white nationalists gathered for a rally over the removal of a confederate statue. Being met by "counter protesters", creating a clash between opposing sides. This rally led a man named James Alex Fields, who drove his vehicle through a crowd of counter protesters, killing one, and injuring over a dozen. This lost control very fast resulting in various casualties. Which does lead to the question, were any laws broken?, or does this rally have protection granted by the first amendment? Of course is protected, up until the rally began to be violent. This dangerous situation starts becoming illegal as soon as any form of violence is introduced.

     Law breaking begins when members of both sides begin starting fights, throwing racial comments/slurs, or by driving a vehicle through a crowd of people. Also breaking the law may occur through other forms such as, not having the right requirements to even start up a protest/rally. For example the government can place a restriction on the "activity" known as a "time, place, and manner" restriction. During this rally, laws were indeed broken, there was too much conflict for something not to have been illegal. 

     In this age, for anyone to voice an opinion is dangerous, it is a hazard to someones life to say anything without there being repercussions, the protection that is supposed to come with the 1st amendment has many loopholes that leave us unprotected. But according to the lovely 1st Amendment of this nations wonderful constitution, we can say whatever the hell we want. 

Comments

  1. UnknownMarch 23, 2018 at 4:41 PM

    nice end (that makes me laugh) however, it's a little general that statement as the 1st Amendment has limitations on what you can said in public. I would like to see a contra argument since you binging talking about the benefices of the freedom of speech, so what about a part where you talk about in which part that freedom end?

    ReplyDelete
  2. AlbertoooMarch 24, 2018 at 9:41 AM

    Nice ending! I agree with the points that you have made on us be able to voice our opinions under the 1st amendment. A little more information on which part that freedom ends would of been helpful! Overall very strong and informative blog.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Matthew MMarch 24, 2018 at 2:54 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Julie Quinn TACMarch 25, 2018 at 6:40 AM

    In that first paragraph, is that description of the 1st Amendment taken from Cornell Law School's website? Set it off in some obvious way (quotes or excerpts) so readers can contextualize the borrowing here. And I'm not sure that the rally was led by Fields. He was one of those participants, right? I believe it was actually organized by Jason Kessler.
    You make an interesting point about how laws can be broken when rallies don't follow the rules for assembly. In this case, what were the specific assembly rules, and how were they broken? Finally--I'm not sure one can say whatever the hell they want without consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Stephanie PhillipsMarch 29, 2018 at 11:43 AM

    I definitely agree in the fact that it is hard to fight for something you believe in without having to face possible repercussions. Something I did not know about that was introduced into me was the “Time, Place, and Manner” restriction that the government is allowed to place on protesters in case they fail to obey the law or even the constitution. I also did not know there were certain requirements for conducting a protest, but I do think it is a good idea to have a rule like that in place so that protesters can exercise their rights and/or beliefs while still staying within the bounds of the law.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Matthew MApril 26, 2018 at 6:03 PM

    I like how in depth you got looking at the first amendment. It can be hard to judge how far freedom of speech can stretch. Obviously things like threats and acts of intimidation are illegal, but where do you draw the line? Its an interesting conversation. It was also very interesting how you walked the line between when a gathering or protest is or is not legal. I think you could tighten up your opening paragraph a little more, however. Developing a solid thesis would really benefit this article overall by giving the reader an impression of the argument you are presenting. At the moment, the conclusion is different from the rest of the article.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wrongful Convictions

Over the years, the United States justice system has incarcerated millions of people. But most importantly, some of these people have been victims of wrongful conviction because of one reason or the other. Hundreds of people who are wrongfully convicted end up spending many years behind bars for crimes they never committed. Exonerations based on DNA analysis have provided proof that wrongful convictions are real . Wrongful convictions result from systemic flaws in the criminal justice system some of which can be addressed. Wrongful convictions can be blamed on various factors, including. Eyewitness Misidentification.             This is the most significant contributor to wrongful convictions in the country. The human brain can fail to recollect the events as they happened. The eyewitness memory could also be riddled with errors, lapses and misjudgments especially if the event was traumatic. Inaccurate identification of su...
Read more

What is Bullying

Bullying entails aggressive and unwanted behaviors among school children which involve a perceived or real power imbalance. In many situations, the behavior can be repetitive or has the potential to be repeated for a prolonged period.   The stude nts involved, that is, the bullies and bullied may have severe prolonged problems.   In this case, this post will advance the concept of bullying in schools, particularly the effects it advances to the victims. Potential suicide: it is one of the worst things which the victims can do in response to bullying. It happens in many situations primarily because of depression and despondency . Moreover, the feelings of helplessness make a bullied person view suicide as the only potent option remaining. Suicide can take several days, months or even years and the affected learner decides extreme social ridicule and embarrassment ( Ttofi et al., 201 Physical injury: bullying on both males and females often lead to physical inju...
Read more

Is the death penalty an effective deterrent

The Death penalty is defined as the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime.A capital crime is a crime that is punishable by death. Capital crimes are mostly associated with first-degree Murder. There’s no doubt that that the death penalty is a punishment but can also be seen as a deterrent. If Its seen as a deterrent then why are crimes that warrant the penalty still being committed. Deterrents are meant to discourage someone from doing something and if that’s not the case with the death penalty then maybe other methods of punishment need to be explored. The death penalty has always been a relevant topic throughout U.S history . In the nineteenth century abolitionist movements were spreading throughout the states in the northeast and as a result, states reduced the number of capital crimes and built more penitentiaries. Another result was that Pennsylvania moved executions from the public eye and did it in private at correctional ...
Read more