Liberty and Justice for All. What are Civil Rights?. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdTpU5WZHHM What does this speech mean to you?. Issues in the News. Page 355: How does this issue compare to Dr. King’s Speech?
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
What does this speech mean to you?
Page 355: How does this issue compare to Dr. King’s Speech?
They both deal with Human Rights or Fundamental Freedoms which lie at the heart of the American Political System
To speak freely?
To read and write what they choose?
To worship as they wish?
As Citizens we share a common faith in the power we have to steer our government.
If we do not carry out our responsibilities then the whole society suffers.
As we know is our greatest protector of our Civil Rights and Liberties
“Congress shall make no law”
Did it apply to the states?
Barron Vs. Baltimore 1833
Paved the way for a major expansion of Individual rights
It defined Citizenship: A person born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen of the nation and the state of residence
However, it also made individual rights: national rights: Page 356 (Open your Books)
Definition: The process by which the Bill of Rights was extended to the states and localities
Why is it important?
If it was not incorporated states could possibly deny certain rights to certain citizens of that state.
Example: The Poll Tax
As a result of incorporation the Bill of Rights has become the final safeguard when personal rights are affected
“Wall of Separation”
Government Officials take their oaths of office in the name of God.
Since 1864 most of the nation’s coins carry the motto “In God we Trust”
Pledge of Allegiance: “one nation under God”
Public meetings including daily sessions of congress open with a prayer
Does Government encourage religion?
Chaplains serve with the army. there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.”
Church property and contributions to religious groups are taxed exempt
You can see how this leads to controversy
And who is supposed to solve this controversy?
Religious Practice may be limited
For example in Reynolds v. United States: George Reynolds, Polygamy case
Oregon vs. Smith: Worker was denied unemployment benefits since he was fired for using drugs as part of a religious ceremony
Wisconsin vs. Yoder: Court upheld religious practices by saying Amish parents did not have to send their children to school past 8th grade, since it violated Amish religious beliefs
Should you have to salute the flag?
In 1936 William Gobitis was expelled from school for not saluting the flag- It was against his religious beliefs, so should he have to salute the flag
Court said the school was correct- Saluting the flag did not infringe on religious freedom
How many of you would agree with the following:
Giving a Speech that to the student body at a student assembly .
What about wearing black armbands to protest a war?
Or protesting a law at the Capitol
Are these all speech?
1. Pure Speech: The Verbal Expression of thought and opinion before an audience that has chosen to listen
This type of speech has traditionally been powerfully protected by the Supreme Court
2. Symbolic Speech: Sometimes called expressive conduct-involves the use of actions and symbols in addition to or instead of words to express opinions
They have developed a three part test; which they established in United States v. O’Brien
Falls within the Constitutional Power of Government
Narrowly Drawn: So government cannot use it further regulate speech
Leaves other Communication Outlets
Yes, and there have to be: For example seditious speech: Which is speech urging resistance to lawful authority or advocating the overthrow of government
But the challenge for the court is when to end these restraints
When speech in question clearly presents an immediate danger, the First Amendment does not protect it
Speech could be restricted even if it had only a tendency to lead to illegal action.
This is not often used
But some Americans think that societies need for order justifies any damage to basic freedoms
First Amendment comes first, above all others
Any law limiting these freedoms should be found unconstitutional unless it is absolutely necessary.
Sedition Laws: 369
This kind of speech is not protected: This is speech that is either untrue or hurtful:
However, public officials are held to a different standard
Hustler Magazine vs. Farewell: sets up the standard that celebrities and politicians cannot sue for Defamatory speech
Some words are so offensive that they are deemed as unprotected speech
Chaplinskyv. New Hampshire (1942): Some words incite fighting, which is a breech of the peace and therefore are not protected.
“the right to peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
Without this Freedom, no political parties and no special interest groups could exist to influence the actions of government
Dejongev. Oregon 1937
Established two legal principles
1. Assembly is as important as the rights of free speech and free press
2. Due Process Clause Applies to Freedom of Assembly
Yes, if there is any potential of violence- example KKK parade then perhaps the Court would rule in favor of a state not allowing the parade
To ensure public order and safety, many states require permits- so streets will not be blocked- Cox. V. New Hampshire
Cox v. Louisiana=
Graynedv. City of Rockford=
Freedom of Assembly does not apply to Private Property
This is when this Principle gets difficult
The Big Three
Feiner vs. New York
Gregory vs. City of Chicago
Not until 1940 in Thornhill vs. Alabama did the Supreme Court Rule that peaceful Picketing was a form of Free Speech
But since this case the court has begun to limit picketing
Can you join an organization that the government considers to be subversive?
In DeJongev. Oregon (1937) the Supreme Court extended the right to freely assemble
Whitney Vs. California (1927)
Dennis Vs. United States (1951)