French Revolution Example Essay Example

not to salute the flag, it is their personal right. However, there are certain actions that are not protected by Freedom of Speech. These include inciting harm towards others, producing or distributing obscene materials, burning draft cards as an anti-war protest, publishing articles against school administration objections in a school newspaper, delivering an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event, or promoting illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.

Despite the rights mentioned in the First Amendment of the Constitution, there have been instances where they were not acknowledged. There have been numerous supreme court cases to protect these First Amendment rights. One such case is Texas vs. Johnson, which involved Gregory Lee Johnson burning an American flag at Dallas City Hall to protest against Reagan. Although some people found the flag burning offensive, no physical harm or threats occurred during the demonstration. Initially, Johnson was sentenced to one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. However, the case was appealed and brought before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. This higher court overturned Johnson's conviction, leading it to be escalated to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 ruling, it was determined that Johnson's actions constituted a form of expressive conduct with political significance. These actions are protected by the First Amendment and have been recognized as a right since 1989 when this case reached its conclusion ("Texas v. Johnson").

The Constitution's safeguarding of speech is a crucial component of the American political system, illustrating the direct connection between Freedom of Expression and democracy. This liberty permits individuals to acquire information from various sources, make informed choices, and communicate those decisions to the government.

Instead of imposing its own version of truth, the government allows the American people to have a voice in their country. According to Justice Louis Brandeis, unrestricted thinking and open expression are vital for uncovering and disseminating political truth ("Freedom of Speech and..."). However, freedom of speech goes beyond self-governance; it also holds personal significance. The human spirit inherently desires self-expression, and thanks to Freedom of Speech in America, individuals can openly express their ideas.

II. Limiting online content and information on the Internet

The rise of the Internet in the mid to late 1900s led to a new form of censorship, as there were now countless webpages that could potentially be censored. In the United States, some people support government-controlled censorship specifically for child-friendly online content ("Internet Censorship"). This issue has been addressed in several Supreme Court cases. In Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court ruled that the Internet should be considered a platform for freedom of speech. As stated on the ACLU website, the court emphasized that just like restricting someone's access to words or images in a library is not allowed, censoring internet content or hiding artistic nudes displayed in museums is also prohibited ("Internet Censorship").

While some parents support Internet censorship for child protection, it is not the government's duty to ensure every child's safety. Presently, parents have convenient access to tools that empower them in controlling their children's online activities. Every US citizen possesses the freedom of expression and should be able to share content without worrying about its appropriateness for children. Imposing Internet censorship would hinder individuals from expressing themselves through blogging or displaying their artistic

creations.

A cyber bullying expert mentioned in an article recognizes that there are varying opinions on whether or not the Internet should be censored as a means to combat this problem. Instead of implementing a controversial plan to filter online content, the expert suggests focusing on addressing cyber bullying through education. Filtering the Internet, presented as a "cyber safety policy," is believed to have little impact on children and bullying. The most effective way to prevent cyber bullying is by addressing both in-person and online forms of harassment. However, some argue that the Internet can actually help reduce bullying by providing a platform for sharing ideas and personal stories about prevention.

The Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA) was introduced in 2011 to combat online piracy. However, there were concerns that SOPA would lead to internet censorship and government control over websites and search engines. Popular website Tumblr opposed SOPA, comparing it to China and Iran's censorship systems. Google's executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, strongly criticized the bill and suggested alternative regulations focusing on tracing payments to illegal websites. It is important to note that there are other ways to address piracy without resorting to internet censorship.

Although SOPA did not pass in the House of Representatives, another bill called CISPA was approved in 2012. This bill requires private companies to disclose personal information upon request from any government agency for "cyber security" purposes. The law's enactment depends on Senate approval or President Obama's signature.

Kersey notes that if this bill reaches Obama's desk, he has promised to veto it.

III. News Organizations

Ever since Richard Pierce printed the first newspaper in Boston on September

25, 1690 (Brown), America has always had a desire for news. However, it is common to find missing articles and information when examining newspapers or magazines because news organizations choose to censor their articles for various reasons, not just for brevity. One reason for this censorship is to protect security information due to the secretive nature of U.S. military, intelligence, and diplomatic operations. An incident that exemplifies this occurred in 1971 when The New York Times published classified Defense Department documents that revealed details about American involvement in the Vietnam war. Consequently, legal action was taken by the Nixon administration but failed to prevent the publication of the leaked documents (Halbrooks).