In class today, we spoke of the line of "best fit," as it pertains to legal theory. I think it is fairly obvious that this is a generalization, and in fact, the law and the principles that are factored into interpreting past law are very messy. With that being said, in the United States at least, in my opinion, the line of best fit can be best applied to our basic first amendment freedoms.
For example, our freedom of speech is a right which many think transcends circumstance; in other words, situations in which the circumstances are different can still expect (reasonably, of course) that one's freedom of speech, or expression, can be protected.
Of course, many points that the line of best fit surrounds are not on the line; some can be a good distance away. In the case of free speech in the US, we have found out over the centuries various limitations of speech. As a general rule of thumb, whenever this speech hinders the bureaucratic process of government (draft card burning) or whenever speech translates to action which presents "clear and present danger," we begin to see limitations. Moreover, speech has more restrictions (appropriateness, time and manner) when it comes to schools. All of these different cases, hypothetically speaking, would lie somewhere along the line of best fit that is the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech seems like a very broad concept and so like you discussed the best fit notion on the first amendment seems to have the need to add some restrictions. If anyone could just say, "I have a bomb," all day long that wouldn't be right. It would most likely be disturbing the peace of society. The idea of freedom of expression must have come from the original writer's wishing to voice their opinions on tyrannical rulings without being subjected to punishment or treason. To this end the freedom of expression should not have bounds I would think (as long as it didn't directly interfere with another person's rights)
ReplyDeleteAs for speech in school I think it should have some restrictions, but it should focus on the intent rather than word itself. Meaning can go both ways as long as a teacher is wise enough to instill the power of a word. I don't think classical literature should be cleaned up, for example Huckleberry Finn uses the word "nigger" multiple times throughout the novel. This book can provide a way to show how far society has progressed in ways of viewing people of various ethnicities. Also, I believe cursing shouldn't be allowed for normal talk (in high school I am assuming as MCLA has some colorful language, sometimes I'm guilty of), but saying someone is writing a realistic novel or short story. If a teenager is seriously trying to write something profound and needs to use cursing within the dialogue I feel they should be allowed to. This is not to say that a teacher can't use discretion if someone is "fucking" (forgive the term) around in class with 'offensive language' on an assignment. It is the job of the teacher to moderate correct behavior not dictate it, like a judge. But that's just my opinion. I'm not a fan of authority unless it has earned my respect.
I agree. In school especially, speech has its limitations. Here's what to look for: disturbance, and inappropriateness. Most Supreme Court cases involving speech in schools concentrate on the appropriateness of speech, in language and symbolism, and also, if the speech disturbs class.
ReplyDeleteIf speech can causes mental harm, it should not be tolerated. Mental harm by speech is something that does not invoke thought; instead, it is oppressive. Physical harm should not be tolerated as speech because it causes suffering.
ReplyDeleteTrue..physical harm would not technically be free speech, regardless. Mental harm is harder to prove. Free speech which protects polarizing political or theological ideas that may offend someone of a different ideology are perfectly legal and constantly upheld by our freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteMental harm in this case, has nothing to do with the concept of protected speech; rather, speech (outside of school) is rarely limited, (strictly speech, excluding symbolic conduct) only in cases that the speech incriminates itself, for example, threatening immediate physical danger, rather than being judged strictly on the capacity of the mental harm it entails on its receptive audience.