Sara+Camp

Is it acceptable for groups to picket and protest when their beliefs are radical or controversial, and the situation could possibly turn violent?



**Summary: ** Our first amendment right is the right to free speech. This is a given right to all American citizens. America is a diverse place, because it is known as the "melting pot" of the world. There are many different views on subjects in America, and because this is a democracy, everyone has the right to that belief. Many people have beliefs that are radical, or controversial. These views are not usually in agreement with the majority of America, and because they aren't, people will speak out against these beliefs. Any situation like this could possibly turn violent. The question is: If these people have the right to free speech, should they be able to, even if their views are radical and could advocate violence?

**Citations (Pictures): **

"PGDE Scrapbook." Enter Website Address or Keywords to Cite. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. .

"Albany NY A.k.a. Smalbany." Civil Right Violation. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. .


 * Pros to Free Speech || Cons to Free Speech ||
 * Freedom of speech means we can say anything we like, no matter how controversial it might be, without fear of persecution. || Freedom of speech means we are able to say what we like about others, which can sometimes lead to untrue or hurtful things being said, printed, or published on the Internet. ||
 * Freedom of speech is very important for the press and media because it allows freedom to write about current events. || Freedom of speech can put many people into danger. WIkiLeaks for example, lets the people know about things that politically a secret. Some of these things could be dangerous to citizens or other people. ||
 * When freedom of speech is guaranteed, people can assemble for peaceful protests without any fear of persecution, which is not exactly the case in countries that are ruled by dictators. || Although freedom of speech gives us the right to assemble for the purpose of making peaceful protests, it is not unusual for violent extremists to create a dangerous environment for others around them. ||
 * Freedom of speech means people can learn from others who might have a different belief, opening their mind to other options. || Free speech can also lead to unwelcome acts. For example, some things said can advocate hate crimes and unwanted actions. ||
 * The public has a right to know things a government might prefer to keep secret, so any attempt to hide freedom of speech in the press and media would be a violation of our basic human rights. || In times of war, freedom of speech must be taken down to some degree to prevent our country's security. ||

** Citation for chart: ** "What Are the Pros and Cons of Freedom of Speech?" //Pros and Cons Ofâ¦â¦//. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. [].

Court Cases FEINER v. NEW YORK: This is a Supreme Court case between Feiner and New York concerning freedom of speech. A petitioner made a speech to a white and black audience encouraging blacks to rise up and fight for their rights. The whites in the audience voiced many violent threats against the petitioner, which caused conflict to the police officers standing by. They arrested him for breach of peace. The court decided to keep the verdict that the petitioner was guilty, for he was putting other’s lives in danger.

MEADOWMOOR v. PETITIONER: This source is a Supreme Court case between milk wagon drivers and Meadowmoor Dairies Inc. concerning the freedom of speech. They protested the working standards, and would get into cars with other union members and things would turn violent often. Stench bombs were thrown in five stores, three trucks were wrecked, a store set on fire, two trucks burned, a storekeeper and truck driver were severely beaten, and in one instance a truck driver was shot at. All of these things were being enjoined by the master. The court ruled that the milk drivers were guilty because they chose to protest in a way that put others’ lives in danger.

SYNDER v. PHELPS: This source is a Supreme Court case between Snyder and Phelps concerning the freedom of speech. Westboro Baptist Church protested at a Marine soldier’s funeral, and the father of the fallen soldier sued the church. Many people were behind the man and his decision to sue. The court ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, and said that it was the church’s first amendment right to be able to protest at the funeral.

Citations for Court Cases:

 “FEINER vs. NEW YORK” N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. []

“MEADOWMOOR vs, PETITIONER” N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. []

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> “SNYDER vs. PHELPS” “U.S. Supreme Court Has Emotional Term Beginning in Snyder vs. Phelps.” //UPI.//N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">[]

<span style="font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 12pt;">What I Think
Freedom of speech is a right that every American deserves. Although many Americans take this right and twist it into allowing them permission to advocate hate on other humans beings, they are still deserving of this right. The things that Westboro Baptist Church is claiming is despicable, but they still have the right to say it. Free speech builds a better world, where we can express our beliefs and be free of oppression.