see the requirements

User Generated

uncclnfhb

Writing

Adult and Continuing Education Cleveland

Description

Write for 5-10 minutes on either of the following questions:

What are you thinking about writing about for Essay #3 Creative Research Paper? Remember that you need to do library research as well as three pieces of field work (interviews, observations, or participation) for this topic.

Essay 3 topic

: Your essay 3 can be about anything. Topics have included the tax system here and in China, compensated dating, anxiety, music's influence on our psychology state, online dating, the Iraq War, ethnic/religious discrimination in Indonesian politics,

concussions, the deterioration of the ocean environment, social media, gender and the fashion industry, refusing marriage, whether a college education is worthwhile, etc.

I'd like you to come up with one or morecritical questionsabout your topic to focus thedirection of your research and writing (see handout). Run your critical question through the litmus test to make sure it is a good one. By the end of the week, I want you to settle on a topic and write a proposal (see handout for directions).

Note on Essay 1: In regards to your final essay #1, please write a "Note to Jeannie" that describes your process for writing the essay: What worked well for you? What didn't work so well? What would you do differently if you could?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Surname 1 Student’s Name Professor’s Name Subject Date Choice 1: Bethel School District vs Fraser Every year, as the school calendar nears its close, and students are making office campaign speeches and commencement keynotes, a landmark student expression and address is spotlighted in the case involving Bethel District School and Fraser. In this case, the court had to consider if the First Amendment protected Fraser’s speech, which was filled with inappropriate content. Specifically, approaching the school podium, the student gazed at a crowd of about 600 students comprised of his schoolmates and read a printout of his speech full of sexual references as well as insinuation, making his audience to react in myriad ways (Thibodeaux 516). Though it was a classic case of an individual’s freedom of speech, the Supreme Court determined that Fraser had used offensive language in his address, which was not protected under the United States’ First Amendment as outlined in the Constitution. As such, the case was highly controversial, with the lower courts’ decision favoring the student, while the Supreme Court toppling the ruling, arguing that Fraser’s speech was indeed disruptive (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser 583-586). Thus, considering the controversy surrounding this case, Fraser’s address does not meet the protection of free speech protections under the First Amendment because it contained materials that are unsuitable for minors in a school podium. In this case, it has been proved that Fraser used what the Supreme Court termed as ‘graphic sexual metaphors’ in efforts to endorse the candidacy of his colleague (Thibodeaux 516). As part of the school’s disciplinary standards and codes, it enforced a rule that attempted to Surname 2 prevent such conduct, as it worked to substantially interrupt and interfere with the institution’s educational process. In particular, most schools, including Bethel, ban the use of inappropriate, indecent, as well as profane language and gestures. In this regard, Fraser’s suspension from school was squarely based on these standards. By taking such a measure, and being backed by the Supreme Court’s ruling, the school acted rightly and never infringed the student’s rights rather such behaviors are not accepted because they constitute lewd and obscene language (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser 583-586). Also, it is well documented that the process of educating children and youths for social responsibility in schools is never restricted to books, civic classes, or the syllabus but that these institutions must teach them values and norms of the civilized social order. In this regard, the schools, including Bethel, serve as important tools of the state, which determines the important lessons of civil and mature conduct of students. In his article about the concept of public discourse, Post evaluates the concept behind the First Amendment free speech protections. For Post, an obscene and sexual speech qualifies as an outrageous reference to the standards of mainstream life. He also argues that in most of the culturally heterogeneous societies America, the First Amendment works best to foster good use of language among different groups of people, especially in ensuring a shared public and democratic perspective. Based on this reason, Post presents that the First Amendment, to a large degree, draws a distinct line between a speech that is unbiased with regard to the particular expectations and standards of communities. In a sense, Post’s article can also be used to analyze the case between Bethel and Fraser. Essentially, Post shows ways in which important themes, in this case, follow from the separation of private discourse, public communication as well as social values. It is this separation that leads to the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court that Fraser’s speech content fundamentally violated the expectations of societal norms and the laid down rules Surname 3 of conduct as outlined in the school’s codes. Furthermore, it is also clear that the legal notion of the public address is intrinsically stable, since speeches that often violate the mainstream norms are seen as illogical and coercive, and therefore, largely incompatible with the American people’s deliberation. Moreover, the First Amendment also supports the enforceability and legal application of these very norms and renders logical deliberations very possible. In opposing the decision of this case, Justice Marshall argued that Bethel had not sufficiently proved their case and ways in which Fraser’s speech had indeed disruptive and indecent. Based on this argument, he believed that the student had not violated the school and that his speech was appropriate given its context. Moreover, as such, his strong opinion was that the student did not disrupt the school process. In this way, he held that the school had unfairly treated and suspended Fraser because the student’s handbook or the teachers had not warned him that he could be suspended from the school upon giving the speech (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser 583-586). Moreover, for Justice Marshall, the constitution, and mostly the Due Process Clause, restricted all public schools from suspending and punishing students without according them fair trials or warnings. Also, he argued that the same Clause equally prohibits the government and its state organs from infringing people’s rights to life, property, as well as freedoms. He also maintained that, just like the adults, students had free speech rights under the constitution (Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser 583-586). Furthermore, he also suggested that students never give up their freedoms to speech when they are in schools, meaning that schools can only interfere with students’ free speeches when it is necessary and mandated under the United States’ laws. I strongly believe that this case would be treated in the same way today because the values the country held back then have not significantly changed. Furthermore, the First Surname 4 Amendment has also not changed from how it was when this case was determined more than two decades ago. While there have been several and endless strings of controversies over the last years entailing attempts to regulate offensive speeches, it is true that their verdicts have always been drawn from the United States’ Constitution, and particularly from the First Amendment. By offensive or inappropriate speech, it means that the speech is especially harmful, distasteful, as well as obnoxious to some segments or groups of people in the society, especially the minors. Sometimes, offensive speeches have the ability to cause psychological torture and injuries to the audiences receiving them. With respect to sexual references and content, it is both the use of language and inferences to erotic materials in use which hurts as well as offends. As such, recent controversies over such speeches involve efforts to prevent and regulate the use of disruptive language and references to audiences that are not suitable for them. I also believe that much of the debate surrounding offensive speech can be attributable to the present state of the cultural battle in America in addition to most of the western nations. Currently, different groups are embroiled in vigorous conflicts over issues of norms, values, codes of behavior, as well as the link between the state as well as the individual. Therefore, a close look at the regulation of offensive language and speech and the First Amendment reveals interesting facts. In most cases, the First Amendment issues, which have been raised by prohibiting and even regulating offensive speech, have for a long time been analyzed in a great deal and detail everywhere in the different societies that make America. The United States’ courts have also determined cases related to regulation and prohibition of offensive speech since the forties and fifties. Majority of these cases offered gave the state some form of leeway in regulating such speeches, including the case that involved Chaplinsky and New Hampshire, where the fighting words doctrine were recognized. Drawing from all these Surname 5 cases, it is apparent that landmark rulings have been made in the country. Perhaps, the most publicized modern-day efforts to regulate and stop offensive speech have been those from colleges and schools, which have drafted different codes of conduct that restrict deemed obscene use of language to minorities, minors, women, and certain groups in the society. These codes and standards are usually based on the idea that the issuance of such speeches results in severe psychological injuries to members of particular groups, and could, therefore; vividly impede the educational process and setting. While the majority of the incidents that have constituted these codes and standards might be regarded as being outrageous and condemned in courts, most of them have not been invalidated under the existing precedents. Generally, supporters of these codes rely on a variety of the First Amendment principles, including fighting words, deliberate infliction of psychological damage, as well as group slander. In relation to Bethel and its decision to discipline Fraser, I also believe that public institutions and schools have an expressive right under the First Amendment to instill good character and reprimand students who seem do deviate from the set rules, including making offensive expressions in public. Moreover, under this Amendment, it has been explicitly declared that the use of inappropriate expressions might not be restricted to adults, which does not follow that the same principle is extended to children in schools. Moreover, the constitution also recognizes the need for protecting young children, and in this case, the minors from exposure to offensive and vulgar expressions. I equally suggest that schools also need to do more in enlightening their students on contents that violate laid down rules and those that constitute offensive expressions in efforts to prevent cases such as Bethel v. Fraser. In the same way, students’ school handbook should contain these codes for easy accessibility and reference by students. Surname 6 Works Cited Surname 7 Thibodeaux, Therese. "Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser: The Supreme Court Supports School in Sanctioning Student for Sexual Innuendo in Speech." Loy. L. Rev. 33 (1987): 516. Post, Robert C. "The Constitutional Concept of Public Discourse: Outrageous Opinion, Democratic Deliberation, and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell." Harvard Law Review (1990): 601-686.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
2 pages
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

1

OUTLINE
Refusing to Marry
Introduction
Body
Conclusion


Running Head: REFUSING MARRIAGE

1

Refusing Marriage
Student’s Name
Institution
Course
Professor’s Name
Date

Refusing Marriage

REFUSING MARRIAGE

2

Marriage is a rite of passage in the life of human beings. All people would, therefore, be
expected to be married at one point. The time for marriage, however, may not be universal and
hence different people are married at different ages. It always upon the individual to choose who
to marry them. As well it is in the will of an individual to decide whether to be married or not.
The act of refusing to be married is not news bur a common scenario that has been experienced.
This reasons for individuals deciding to refuse marriage are different and de...


Anonymous
I was struggling with this subject, and this helped me a ton!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags