Andrew Dowling
English 126
The Attack on Censorship
The thought that appears in when the Federal Communications Commission is brought up
are typically ones of unnecessary (or necessary depending on who you ask) government
censorship and limitations on free speech. However, is the FCC really violating the first
amendment’s right to free speech by imposing limits on what television and radio companies can
and cannot broadcast? Some view the simple existence of the FCC as an infringement on the first
amendment, as having a commission dedicated regulating communication seems to contradict
our amendment that promises freedom of communication. Though the FCC limits what specific
words can be said on air, it in no way limits individuals from expressing their viewpoints on air,
as long as they word said viewpoints appropriately. The FCC simply forces broadcast companies
to convey their messages using words that would not offend a listener or viewer who may have
stumbled upon their broadcast accidentally.
The first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states that the
government shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (US Const.,
amend. I), and ‘speech’, as defined by Merriam Webster is simply the “communication or
expression of thoughts in spoken words”. Therefore, by placing limitations on what words can or
cannot be used, the FCC is not violating free speech, but rather restricting what form free speech
can take. Broadcasters are free to express themselves on air, however must do so in a way that
will not offend listeners. The FCC states that even explicitly sexual language may be allowed on
air to portray a message, so long that it does not “lack serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value”. The FCC filters out content that is intended to offend, or disgust an audience, it
does not filter out messages and ideas. Simply put, obscene, indecent, and profane speech is not
protected by the first amendment right, even though obscene, indecent, and profane ideas may.
Therefore, the FCC is not violating any rights outlined by the first amendment by limiting such
vulgar speech.
In his article Why We Need To Abolish The FCC, author, Robert Garmong rants about
how the FCC is an organization that is directly opposed to the idea of free speech, and therefore
infringes upon our rights as citizens. Garmong brings up a valid point about the airwaves that
radio signals travel on. He claims that because airwaves are public property, the information that
is transmitted on them should not be filtered. The key fault in this argument is that indecent
behavior and actions are not permitted on public property anyway. The United States does not
allow nudity on public property, so why should it have to permit such indecencies on air?
However, Garmong himself contends that “So far, only ‘indecency’ has been targeted by the
FCC’s crackdown - but politicians on both sides have begun whispering demands to censor PBS
or the Fox News Channel on the grounds that their alleged biases violate the ‘public interest.’”
For better or worse, this is Garmong’s only real attempt to give evidence to convince his readers
that the FCC is going to violate the first amendment. Garmong’s argument is weak, as the
demands of politicians of the FCC in no way reflects the actions of the FCC. If I demand that
you commit a crime, should you be arrested of that crime, regardless of your intent to commit it?
No, of course not, and similarly the FCC should not be punished due to the demands of
politicians.
By creating a place where everyone needs to behave in a civil manner, the FCC has
helped our first amendment right more than hurt it. When different opinions and ideas are voiced
in an inoffensive way, it encourages more listeners to tune into their radio sets and televisions, as
the threat of being bombarded with profanity is eliminated. If there was no censoring, television
and radio could not be the beacon of free speech and public opinion that they are now, as much
of the population would choose not to watch television or listen to the radio. The FCC acts in the
public’s best interest.
“speech." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2019.
Web. 25 February 2019.
“Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts.” Federal Communications Commission, 11 Feb.
2019, www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts.
Garmong, Robert. “Why We Need To Abolish The FCC.” San Diego Business Journal, 9 Aug.
2004.
SEUNGMIN LEE
Dr. Jeannie Chiu
English 126 5178
26 February 2019
Essay 1 first draft
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep
to the slaughter.” (George Washington) If everything we say is monitored and censored by a
man of authority, can we correct the wrong choice? In the 2000s, the National Intelligence
Service (NIS) eavesdropped on politicians and civilians in South Korea. The National
Intelligence Service said it was for the nation, but the public's response was appalling. The
Korean people have been subjected to dictatorship in the past and know how frightening it is
to eavesdrop. The reason why numerous inhumane acts committed at that time could have
been carried out was also that the eavesdropping of the public could have prevented them. If
the people's mouths are shut in this way, they lose the means to check the nation's inhumane
acts. Therefore, stopping political remarks, such as the Dearborn School's blocking students
from expressing their opinions, is a matter to be considered until the end.
Also, preventing freedom of expression is like destroying the competitiveness of the
country. There are many critical points of national competitiveness; creativity is the core of
national competitiveness. Creativity cannot be pervasive without freedom of expression. If
you suppress expression, your thoughts die. Then, should freedom of speech always be
preserved? Freedom of expression is not allowed indefinitely. When it undermines necessary
democratic order and national authority, it is also restricted to the public interest to hurt the
aesthetic and social order by excessive description, such as violence and pornography.
However, the Dearborn School officials were sending a Michigan high school student to
home because they were revealing their opinions on a T-shirt opposing the Iraqi war. They
claimed that the shirt promoted terrorism and would cause a disruption. Even if the school
thinks that political remarks can cause disruption, I insist that schools should be a place
where students can open their mouths freely.
One reason that school should not shut the student up is that the student didn't
break the rules. Schools have the right to punish students for breaking the rules. Schools have
the right to punish students for breaking the rules. In other words, students know what
punishment they will be if they break the rules they set in the school and agree to the content.
However, if the school punishes students by first putting the rules aside from what they
promised, I think the students can also fight the punishment. According to the article, "
Administrators also did not have a right to send Barber home, according to the complaint,
because legal precedent only permits schools to discipline students who are violating a
written rule, and the Dearborn district does not have a policy banning political speech."
(Student Sues School District, 582) Why legal precedent only permits schools to discipline
students who are violating a written rule? It is a self-restriction of the powers authorized to
guarantee the freedom and rights of the people.
Punishing a student with such unenacted
rules as Dearborn would allow the school to take control of the students' speech and behavior
and could undermine their free discussion and freedom of expression. If a school is a
dominant place to control students rather than a place of learning and exchange, the school
will no longer be a student's space but a factory that produces workers for the privileged.
Therefore, to keep schools as a place of free learning and expression for students, schools
always need to inform students about corporal punishment and never punish students with
standards that are not made beforehand.
The other reason that The Dearborn School was wrong is the wording of the T-shirt
was not to attack anyone, but to express one's opinion. According to Dearborn, the shirt
promoted terrorism and would cause a disruption, although he wore the shirt to show his
opinion about against war. However, that is an entirely wrong and subjective judgment. The
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced that even there was no evidence the Tshirt disrupted school, but the school had violated student’s right to freedom of speech
because they don't want to risk it. (Student Sues School District, 582) The first is to promote
terrorism, but I do not know where the evidence came from. The definition of terrorism is the
act of using violence to intimidate or terrorize an opponent. The student did not encourage or
induce violence, only came to school wearing a T-shirt that speaks his opinion instead. It was
the school's judgment, not the other students or people, that judged the phrase to promote
terrorism. In other words, the expression must have felt that it supports terrorism because it is
an uncomfortable phrase for the political side of the school rather than developing real
terrorism. Indeed, if the wording of the T-shirt encouraged terrorism, it would have been
more legal than a problem in schools. The same holds for claims to cause disruption. The
confusion that the school claims is a subjective judgment and preventing political speech by
personal judgment is not an act for students but an action to avoid risk.
Finally, in order to activate students' free discussion, there should be no punishment
for political remarks about students. As American society is a gathering of various people, it
is quite natural that views differ. Therefore, students think that learning to talk, persuade, and
discuss with others in advance is very important. Since high school is an institution that
provides education to students, it is essential to provide an environment that encourages
students to express a variety of unique ideas. If schools ban students for fear of the aftermath
of their political remarks, a place where students can freely share and learn their thoughts will
disappear. There are arguments that college campuses should take a role to protect students
who are frequently targeted by “hate speech.” (Massaro, 213) The reason for the claim is that
it is better to educate students on how to respond to and refute political statements, even if it
is inconvenient than banning them from making political statements to avoid conflicts. There
is no fundamental solution by avoiding and turning away. Therefore, I think it is for students
to teach them how to face in advance, even if the school is a little inconvenient.
All human rights, including freedom of expression, were created with the aim of
minimum safeguards to enjoy a 'good life.' It is paradoxical that human rights created in this
sense are the source of the conflict. Likewise, conflict over freedom of expression and hate
speech is a conflict that can be easily seen in our society. Then, where should freedom of
expression be limited?
We live in a society of diverse people and I don't think freedom of
expression should be kept until it harms other people's freedom and rights. Also, as Dearborn
School argues, schools can restrict freedom of expression in a capacity to prevent remarks
that could be a problem. However, I think forced action should be the last resort.
Controversial remarks should be tackled with arguments. The higher the level of this debate,
the more nourished the democracy. I think that sufficient experience must be made to raise
the level of controversy and that students should not be prevented from speaking in schools
that should have this experience. The Dearborn School banned students from making political
remarks on principles that they did not set in advance, and the judgment was made through
their subjective opinions, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to learn the debate.
Freedom of expression fosters democracy. We should not deny the next generation of
democratic growth opportunities.
Work Cited :
Massaro, Toni M. Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma,
32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 211
(1991), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol32/iss2/3
BOLANLE BALOGUN
ENGLISH 126: CRITICAL THINKING
ESSAY ONE
FREE SPEECH AND FREE ASSOCIATION
“A Case the Scouts Had to Win”
February, 2019
Introduction
In recent years, there had been so many discussions about freedom of speech and hate
speech in colleges; what constitute each and what the first amendment says about freedom of
speech. There had been debates about what is being protected by the first amendment and being
careful not to restrict freedom of speech because liberty of free speech conflicts with the
elimination of racism (Lawrence, 374). The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States declares “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free expression thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected
free speech under the First Amendment (Wikipedia). While most people will agree that any
disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action towards one or another person especially
based on race, sexual orientation, background, color, disability etc. should not be used; it can
sometimes be very difficult to decide what kinds of speech constitute insult (Lawrence, 373).
How about other situations like being left out of a group due to your sexual orientation, ethnicity
or sex? In the article by Johnson “A Case the Scouts Had to win”, the Supreme Court rules that it
is unconstitutional for the state to require a Boy Scout to admit a gay scout master. The judgment
was based on the first amendment’s free association (Johnson 596). One is free to choose who to
associate with and who not to. We all need access to employment, transportation etc., it is our
civil right; however, it is not a civil right to assist in raising other people’s children. Johnson
further explained that serving as a role model for young children is a service, one which is
entrusted to only a few people, those who share common values with their parents.
The right of freedom of association is protected by the first amendment, antidiscrimination laws should not be extended to private groups whose purpose is not to make a
profit but to bring together people with similar values. Extending anti-discrimination laws to
such groups would destroy the nation’s diverse tradition of voluntary collaboration for common
causes.
Private groups are brought together for a reason, usually they have a mission and share
the same goals and, in some cases, like the Boy’s Scout also share some morals and value. The
mission of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is to prepare young people to make ethical and
moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.
The Scout Oath states “On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and
to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight”. Religion may not play a major role in the day-to-day
activity of a scout’s troop but it is obvious from their oath that they put God first; the first
statement declares “I will do my best to do my duty to God”. This shows how being of service to
others relates to our duty to God and mentioning God shows their reverent toward God. BSA
Statement of Religious Principle “maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of
citizen without recognizing an obligation to God.” Commitment to God requires following and
teaching God’s principles as a guide to life.
It is expected before anyone joins a private group, that such a person would find out what
the group is all about, their mission, goals, values etc. and be sure you fit into the criteria. One
cannot claim to be a Christian serving God and at the same time interested in a form of evil
group for instance, it just does not go hand in hand. It’s been labeled an evil group for a reason;
if you are interested in joining, that means you are ready to follow their ways, thereby dropping
your good ways. It will be contradicting to join and then still stay “good” serving God. The Boys
Scout is a private, not-for-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young
people The Boys The group asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it
seeks to instill.
The Supreme Court ruled on the 28th of June 2000 that pronounced that it is
unconstitutional for the state to require the Boy’s Scout troop to admit a gay scoutmaster. The
court’s decision was based on the heart of the Frist Amendment’s guarantee of free association.
This was a case with the Boys Scout off American v. James Dale. James had actually been a
member of the BSA since he was 8 years old and remained until he turned 18. He then applied
for adult membership which was approved for the position of assistant scoutmaster of Troop 73,
but around that period when Dale got to college, he acknowledged to himself and others that he
is gay. He got involved immediately and became the copresident of the university’s Lesbian/Gay
Alliance. The BSA revoked his membership after finding out and Dale filed a complaint against
the BSA. The court had ruled in the past that the need for basic necessities must sometimes
override the right to associate. Everyone needs access to a job, transportation, restaurants etc., it
is their civil right and cannot be denied due to freedom of association. However, it is not a civil
right to assist in raising other people’s children. The Boys Scout are a private group of boys
whose parents share the same values, this is a service and totally different from a privilege of an
education, a job and access to public places. The purpose of the group is to instill values in the
members. Being a gay is considered inappropriate by the group, so it became impossible for Dale
to continue to be a scoutmaster as he is expected to be a role model to the boys. The Boy Scout
pledge in their oath to remain morally straight but in Dale’s case, declaring that he is gay means
that he has deviated from the oath and the BSA will not like him to influence the young boys
likewise. Parents of the members will also not be comfortable having him as a scout master
because they may be threatened of outside influence.
The Chief Scout Executive of the BSA claims that being a scout leader is a privilege, not a right.
Exercising the right to exclude others may seem intolerant, but such a right is indispensable to private
groups seeking to define themselves, to chart their own moral course, and to work together for common
ends. The Boys Scout cannot be required to admit leaders who advocated a position contrary to its own.
Works sited:
Johnson, Steffen N. “A Case the Scouts Had to Win.” The New York Times, The New York
Times, 30 June 2000, www.nytimes.com/2000/06/30/opinion/a-case-the-scouts-had-to-win.html
Lawrence, Charles R. III. “The Debate Over Placing Limits on Racist Speech Must Not
Ignore the Damage It Does to Its Victims”
Hate speech in the United States. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Retrieved 14
February 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hate_speech_in_the_United_States&oldid=88318016
3
Rehnquist. “BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE.” LII / Legal Information Institute, Legal
Information Institute, 28 June 2000, www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html (Links
Purchase answer to see full
attachment