Freedom of Speech in America

The First Amendment of the Constitution.

            As I began my research, I had no idea how complex freedom of speech really is. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law […] prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech […]” Reading this, it seems pretty simple, the government can’t tell me what to say and can’t punish me for what I do say. If only it were that easy. I decided to look further into the concept of free speech and what I found really surprised me.

            Our democracy depends on freedom of speech and expression; otherwise we lower ourselves to a totalitarian, dictatorship-like style of government. Americans can believe what they want, and according to the Constitution they are allowed to express those ideas. This raises many questions, however, and creates many grey areas. What is okay to say and what is not, and who decides? Two main types of speech I first came across were Obscenity and Libel. In 1957, the Supreme Court stated that “obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press”, however what decides if something is obscene is another story. In a 1973 case, Miller v. California, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that “materials were obscene if:

1)   The work as a whole appealed to a prurient interest in sex

2)   The work showed patently offensive sexual conduct that was specifically defined by an obscenity law

3)   The work as a whole lacked serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”

You would think that this cleared things up, but during my research I found that whenever something was said or created to answer questions, it ended up raising more questions than it answered. The main question I had and, according to my research, apparently the rest of the country had was “What is considered offensive, hateful, obscene, or permissible?”

            The court system of the United States has to draw the line separating permissible and impermissible speech. The AP Government text gave me great examples of what is considered “permissible”: holding a rally to attack an opposing candidate’s policies and views receives the protection of the First Amendment, however obscenity and libel comments such as threats to overthrow the government do not receive the same protection. Advocates of limiting the freedom of speech would say things such as hate speech (racial insults or fighting words) are “undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetrator’s intent is not to discover truth or invite dialogue, but to injure the victim”. I agree with this to some extent because the purpose of free speech is to discuss our disagreements, if these discussions do not occur anger rises and eventually leads to violence. On the other hand, where is the line to be drawn? How many First Amendment rights are we willing to sacrifice in order to stop “hurting people’s feelings”.

A protester's sign claiming "hate speech is not free speech". 

            There are many different routes I could’ve taken with my research, but I decided to pick free speech and social media. Growing up in a time where I can’t go on Twitter or Instagram without seeing someone being called a “fag” or and “idiot” made me want to research this aspect of free speech further. Is calling someone a “fag” not considered hate speech? I understand that the federal court system can’t punish everyone who has ever posted something obscene on the Internet, but I wanted to see if people have actually been punished for their posts. I found that many of the social media sites were concerned with being liable for what people post on their sites. Because of this concern, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was created. Section 230 immunizes websites from legal liability for the comments of their users. Since this happened, social media has become a place where people can blow off steam by posting something horrible about someone or something without worrying about getting themselves or the company in any trouble.

This is the ACLU's logo.

            The American Civil Liberties Union is an organization that has devoted the last 100 years to defending and preserving the individual rights and liberties of the American people based on the Constitution. According to the ACLU, the Internet should be uncensored and deserves the same protection as books, magazines, and newspapers. They also believe in the right to remain anonymous when online. The US Supreme Court has even said, “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.” This right is given to ensure the safety of Internet users against corporations and the government. These rights should apply to the digital world just as they do to the real world. This makes sense to a certain extent, calling someone a fag on Twitter is virtually the same as walking up to them and saying it to their face, however other types of posts are different.

A picture of Anthony Elonis next to one of his threatening posts on Facebook.

         The main type of speech I encountered when it came to the Internet was libel. Libel is basically written defamation, it can be any print, writing, picture, or any communication in physical form. Libel is governed by state law and since 2014; it is governed by the Supreme Court. In December of 2014, the Supreme Court heard their first case on free speech and social media. This case, named Elonis v. US, forced the Supreme Court to draw the line on social media. A man by the name of Anthony Elonis had just gone through a nasty divorce with his wife and posted some threatening comments on Facebook. His most graphic post said the following: “There's one way to love ya, but a thousand ways to kill ya, And I'm not going to rest until your body is a mess, Soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts. Hurry up and die b*tch” Reading this actually gives me chills, but he has the right to say it, or at least he thought he did. This case was heard by the Supreme Court and eventually Elonis was sentenced to 44 months in prison. Elonis, however, raised a very good point. Why do rappers win awards for songs about guns and drugs but he gets arrested for putting it on Facebook? His lawyers argued that it was “therapeutic” for him to write these things and that he didn’t mean anything by it, but the wife was legitimately concerned for her life. 

Supreme Court Justice Scalia.

During the trial, Justice Scalia commented on Elonis’ threats to his wife: “If you threatened somebody with violence and don’t actually apply violence, it’s still considered an assault” In this court case, the Supreme Court showed the world where the line is when it comes to social media and free speech.

            The topic of free speech is extremely important to the history of our country. What would have happened if Martin Luther King Jr. wouldn’t have given his famous speech or if Americans wouldn’t have rallied against abortion? Our country as we know it would not be the same without freedom of speech and our other Constitutional rights.

            During my journey through this topic, I realize I have only scratched the surface when it comes to free speech. This topic is more complex than I could have ever imagined and I have great respect for judges across the country. Setting boundaries for something already defined by the Constitution can be extremely difficult and receives a lot of disagreement. I picked this topic because I thought it would be interesting to research and I could not have been more correct. I have learned so much not only about free speech but also about the Constitution and the court system of the United States of America. Whether or not I agree with what is being said, I still believe freedom of speech is vital to our country.

Annotations:

ACLU: This source was a great place for information and a good insight into how people react to free speech. The ACLU is a great organization that fights for people's civil liberties and educates the populus about their rights.
Stanford Law: This source was a good transition into the world of social media and how free speech and the Constitution apply.
Cornell Law: I used this source mainly for a better understanding of libel and everything it entails.
Constitution: I used the Constitution to read the First Amendment and use it in my research/essay.
CNN: I used this source to read about the case taken to the Supreme Court about free speech and social media.
Supreme Court: I picked quotes from a transcript of a Supreme Court case to use in my paper.
AP Government Text: I used this text to get a basic understanding of free speech and the First Amendment.
NPR: I cited this source because it provided me the exact words Elonis posted on Facebook that got him arrested.

Cinderella Man

Prompt: “The movie, Cinderella Man, takes place during the Great Depression, but it ultimately does a much better job of telling us an emotional and inspirational “fairy tale” about one man than it does exposing audiences to the facts about the Great Depression as it was experienced by most Americans.”

            When I first received the two prompts, I thought for sure I wanted to talk about how much I learned about the Great Depression during this movie. This is true, however I realized how much I was actually shielded from. Cinderella Man takes place during the Great Depression so I was exposed to some of the horrific things that took place during this time, but this was not the main purpose of this film.

            In the 1930s, boxing, the second most popular sport in America, ruled when it came to leisure time. Influenced heavily by the Great Depression, boxing changed greatly during these few years. Because of the suffering economy, fighters were offered lower pay, however, they would fight for anything because they needed money. This is accurately shown in the movie, especially when Braddock starts out making good money from his fights, but when the economy crashes, he is forced to beg for fights, and even just for money. This is interesting, however, because people would spend everything they had just to see a big fight or listen to it in a local bar. Whether or not people were willing to admit it, boxing provided a sense of community for Americans. No matter who it was or what class they came from, people all watched and enjoyed boxing in the same way. When the dock owner sees Braddock’s fight and reads about him in the paper, for just a moment, money doesn’t matter. At this moment, it didn’t matter that Braddock was having to beg this man for work, because boxing brought them together.

            However, in this movie, Braddock’s final opponent Max Baer is completely railroaded by the directors. It seems as if they took every boxing-related stereotype and implanted into Baer’s character. In the scene where the two men talk in the bar and Baer says to Mae, “you’re too pretty to be a widow”, it really shows to the audience that Baer wanted to kill Braddock and he would take pride in it. This couldn’t be further from the truth. After Baer killed Campbell(another fighter) in the ring, he was plagued with guilt for the entirety of his life. He even provided financial support to Campbell’s family until the day he died. Boxing experts say that he was never the same fighter after this incident. He was even charged with manslaughter, but was eventually cleared. His second “killing”, as depicted in the movie, was completely exaggerated. This man that Baer allegedly killed actually fought 4 more fights before dying. In all honesty, a number of things could have killed this man. Yes, the fight with Baer could have played a part in this, but there was no need for the movie producers to depict it this way. Baer, in the movie, is shown as a barbarian who is proud of his killings. I’m surprised the producers didn’t show him holding the heads of the men he had killed. The way he is depicted in this film, that wouldn’t be too far off.

            There was also major controversy over how the Jewish star on Baer’s shorts was shown. In reality, the star is bright, yellow, and huge, but in the movie it is very dull and almost unnoticeable. Baer wore this star to fight against the increasing anti-Semitism in Europe and this was the cause he fought for the entirety of his career. Because of this, Baer lifted the spirits of Jews all across the world and was seen as a hero for them, but we never see this in the movie. The producers of this movie wanted Baer to be seen as the “bad guy” in order to make Braddock more appealing to the audience. They didn’t want viewers to have any sympathy for Baer because they needed people to love Braddock. When I watched the film, I thought Baer was a horrible person and I was very happy when Braddock beat him, however after reading more about Baer, I realize that he was actually a really good guy who fought for a great cause.

            Using all of these techniques, the producers provided a very entertaining, fairy tale story of the life of James J Braddock. I understand how the main purpose of this movie was to show his life, however, it was not necessary to wreck the life of another fighter. It would be unfair to say this movie didn’t educate, however, this is not the main purpose. In this sense, the movie does a fantastic job of showing how popular boxing was and how it effected the lives of many Americans in the Great Depression, but it does not provide an accurate depiction of the lifestyle of the common man. Braddock is a great guy who got a second chance because of boxing, but many were not that lucky. To me, this movie made it seem like everyone got out, when in reality many didn’t.

            Cinderella Man is a great movie, don’t get me wrong, I actually really enjoyed it, but I now realize why I liked it so much. It is a classic fairy tale; just like Cinderella. Cinderella starts off living a great life, just like Braddock, but when her parents die, she is forced into a period of depression and hard times. This is comparable to how the Depression affected Braddock. After living in this period, Cinderella finds her prince and everything is happy again. When Braddock starts to fight again and ends up winning, it’s a classic “fairy tale ending”. The movie doesn’t end with Baer killing Braddock, it ends with what the viewers would want. This movie helped to inspire millions going through hard times, but while doing that it loses a lot of historical accuracy.  

Max Baer in real life. 

Sources: 

Beliefnet

Interfaith Family

ProBoxing Fans

Malta Boxing

Forward

Civil Rights Institute Fun :)

I think this trip was very eye-opening for me. Before we went, I knew some of the things that happened in that time but never the severity of it. I had no idea that the would unleash angry dogs and just let them bite people or spray them with water hoses to the point that it would knock them down. After watching the video and listening to the speaker at the 16th Street Baptist Church, I feel like I know more about what happened and have a better understanding. My favorite part was listening to the speaker at the church, I really enjoyed what he had to say and I loved that he incorporated religion into his speech. He seemed like a very religious man himself and it was great to see how he was so passionate about teaching people like us the reality of what happened. It was so surreal to be sitting in the same place that they were sitting in when the church was bombed and I felt like being there made it more real for me. To see that these things happened so close to where we live and not that long ago is so crazy to me. To think that my parents were alive when this was happening and lived through all of this change is amazing. I think this field trip was great for all of us because we could actually see some of the things that happened in person as opposed to just learning about it in school. One thing I will never forget that I saw yesterday was two black women leaning on the gate at the jail cell in the museum praying. They probably stayed there for 15 minutes just reflecting and praying and it was amazing to see that. It really shows the impact of what Dr. King had not only on the people at the time, but people now. 

This is a photo collage of the 4 girls that lost their lives in the 16th Street Bombings.

Questions About World War I

1) WWI officially began on July 281914 when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. The immediate cause for this declaration and the beginning of a world war was the assasination of Franz Ferdinand by the Serbian Nationalist Gavrilo Princip. This war was fought between the "Central Powers" and the "Allied Powers". Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire made up the Central Powers and Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, and Japan made up the Allied Powers.

2) The United States joined the Allied forces in 1917. They entered the war because of Germany's aggression at sea against Great Britain and the sinking of the British oceanliner, the Lusitania, in May of 1915. This helped turn the American public again Germany and in February of 1917, Congress passed an arms appropriations bill to ready the United States for war.

3) On November 11, 1918 Germany signed an armistice ending World War I. Germany was forced to seek an armistice after the Central Powers were unraveling because of the lack of resources on the battlefield, discontent from people back home, and the surrendering of its allies.

4) The terms of the armistice required the German to leave all German-occupied territories on the Western Front within two weeks, Allied forces were to occupy the left bank of the Rhine whereas the right bank was established as a neutral zone. All treaties previously signed with Russia and Romania were annulled. As far as equipment goes, the Germans lost much of their artillery, many aircrafts and submarines, as well as locomotives and railway wagons. This armistice was called the Treaty of Versailles, however the US did not ratify this treaty. Despite the encouragment and hard work of President Wilson, the US Senate killed the treaty. They did not want to become part of the League of Nations. Other things such as hostility between countries and different ethnic groups in America not agreeing with the terms of the treaty played part in this.

5) Was it really necessary for the United States to join this war? Were there other things involved besides the sinking of British ships that turned the US against Germany and the Central Powers? If they were against Germany all along, why did they wait four years to join the war?

A chart showing the number of casualties for both sides during WWI. 

Sources:
World War I History
The Armistice
The Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations

Birth Control Movement

Birth Control Movement

            Birth control in the 19^th century was a very controversial topic, and it still is today. Many believe birth control is wrong and immoral for many different reasons. Christians and other religious people believe that sex should only be used to have a child; therefore any sort of contraceptive is wrong. Margaret Sanger felt strongly about the rights of women to use birth control and dedicated her life to showing that.

            The Birth Control Movement was part of the Reform Movement of the 19^th century. During the Reform Movement, women worked on many issues relating to sexuality, marriage, and childbirth. They worked to censure pornography, abolish prostitution, and end “white slavery” which was commonly known as sex trafficking. They also wanted to raise the age of sexual consent and promote sexual education in schools and at home. The Birth Control Movement was founded during the Progressive Era as a response to the Comstock Laws of the 1870s. These laws outlawed the distribution of birth control info and devises through the mail. The laws were regarded as the “Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use”. These immoral uses included unlawful abortion and contraception. These laws created havoc among the birth control advocates, but it didn’t stop them. These laws not only pushed these women, but they brought the work of Margaret Sanger to light.

            Born into a family of 11 children, Sanger saw the effects of childbirth early on. Her mother painfully endured 11 childbirths and 7 miscarriages before she died at the age of 50. Standing over her mother’s grave, Sanger lashed out at her father, “You caused this. Mother is dead from having too many children.” Even after the death of her mother, Sanger still saw the lasting effects of childbirth in women. As a trained nurse, Sanger saw first hand graphic examples of the toll taken by frequent childbirth, miscarriages, and self-induced abortion. Many of these women turned to horrible methods of abortion because they couldn’t bear having another child.

            In an interview with Sanger, she explains her reasoning behind her support of the birth control. She was asked if she fought for birth control as a way of fighting the church. As the daughter of an atheist father, Sanger and her siblings were often referred to as “children of the devil”. It would make sense for her to want revenge on the church however she states, “No, I don’t think it had anything of the kind. I was, what I call, a born humanitarian. I don’t like to see people suffer, I don’t like to see cruelty even to this day, and in nursing you see a great deal.” She also explains how at this time, she had no opposition to the church, mainly the law, federal and state. She believed that women should have the right to be educated about the different ways of birth control and that the state should not mandate this topic. Later in the interview, she was asked out right what her motive was. She made it clear that her main purpose and primary goal was to end the suffering of women.

            Because of these reasons, Sanger devoted her life to legalizing birth control and making it universally available to women. She began to write and publish articles on the subject and eventually published a magazine called The Woman Rebel. This magazine was a radical feminist monthly that advocated military action and the right of every woman to be the “absolute mistress of her own body.” This magazine actually coined the word “birth control”. Despite Sanger’s many efforts, the authorities suppressed 5 of the 7 issues under the Comstock Laws. After this, however, Sanger defied authorities by publishing a 17-page pamphlet entitled Family Limitation, containing precise examples of various contraceptive methods.

            Other than writing articles, Sanger also took many steps to provide birth control care to many women. Sanger founded the National Birth Control League(NBCL), which would later turn into the Voluntary Parenthood League. Then, on October 6,1916, Sanger opened the nation’s first birth control clinic in Brooklyn. Nine days later she was arrested along with her coworkers. Sanger was eventually put on trial for this, but this didn’t shut her movement down, she used the media to gain support. Because of this, Sanger has great success in gaining public support and persuading the general public and authorities to join her movement. After the opening of the birth control clinic, Sanger’s movement began to have great success with the law. By 1918, the state allowed physicians to prescribe birth control to women when medically indicated. After the founding of the American Birth Control League in 1921, a clinic was opened, staffed with many female physicians, to provide and array of gynecological and contraceptive services. This clinic, Birth Control Clinic Research Bureau, became a model for a nationwide system of doctor-staffed clinics. By, 1937, the American Medical Association finally endorsed birth control as a form of legal contraception.

            It is obvious that Sanger’s entire life was devoted to this movement and she had great success, even after facing many hardships in the beginning: jail, scrutiny, and mockery. Sanger, however, could not have succeeded without using some important tools and tactics. By using communication and persuasion, Sanger was able to gain a wide range of support for her movement. Like I mentioned earlier, Sanger used the media during her trial to persuade the public to join her movement. I believe that Sanger’s entire movement was devoted to persuading not only the American people, but also the law and the authorities to support birth control. While spending time in England, Sanger was greatly influenced by many theorists and feminists and this impacted her movement. When attempting to create an oral contraceptive in 1951, Sanger collaborated with two important individuals. She collaborated with medical expert Gregory Pincus and international heiress Katharine McCormick to create the world first, FDA approved, oral contraceptive, Envoid. Because of this collaboration, the court ruled the private use of contraceptives a constitutional right. Using these three tactics, communication, persuasion, and collaboration, Sanger was able to do great work in changing America’s and the world’s view about birth control.

            Because of Sanger’s dedication and determination, women around the world were freed from the pain of unwanted childbirth, and the harm of the unjust forms of self-inflicted abortion. They were also, now, able to choose for themselves whether or not they wanted to have and raise a child. Sanger changed the lives of many women and families around the world and for that, the world will be forever grateful.

Margaret Sanger 

Margaret Sanger's signature, commonly seen on many of her papers and journals. 

A snippet from a 1914 issue of The Woman Rebel

Many women at a meeting of the American Birth Control League

A picture of a page from an issue of The Woman Rebel

Works Cited:

National Women's History Museum: This source was useful as a first source to get an overview of the topic. It was not a very long article, however, it did have good information for how short it was. It briefly explained the causes of the Birth Control Movement and introduced me to Margaret Sanger. The National Women's History Museum was founded in 1996 by Karen Staser and has been committed to educating the public about women's history ever since. 

Britannica: I used this source just to get a general idea of what the Comstock Laws were and how they affected the Birth Control Movement. Britannica is an online encyclopedia as well as a print and is a general knowledge English-language encyclopedia. 

American National Biography: This source was very useful because it gave not only information about Margaret Sanger herself, but also about her beliefs and work with birth control. Some of the information was extraneous, but once I picked out what was useful and appropriate for my research, I got a lot of information from it. This page was written by Esther Katz, the editor and director of the Maragret Sanger Papers Project and a graduate of NYU with a PhD in US History. 

The Woman Rebel and The Fight for Birth Control: This primary source was an article from Maragret Sanger's The Woman Rebel. Although I did not use this article as much as the other, it did give a good look into Sanger's persistence during this process. It tells about her struggles and the troubles she faced while pursuing this. 

Interview with Margaret Sanger: I really enjoyed watching this interview because I got to hear Sanger answer some questions on the spot without a lot of time to think. She answered some basic questions about her work,  but also had to answer many questions regarding why she did what she did. It was beneficial for my research to hear what Sanger had to say and I got some really good quotes and information from this. 

Morality and Birth Control: This primary source was another article published by Margaret Sanger. This was a good look inside Sanger's head and I feel like I got a sense of how she came about her work with birth control. It gave a real life example of what Sanger saw and told about how she reacted. Because this was written by Sanger herself, I feel like I got a different experience than just reading an article about the Birth Control Movement. 

PBS: This was a very useful source and it provided a great insight as to why Sanger felt the way she did about birth control. It had very useful information organized in an easy-to-read manner. PBS is a public broadcasting service owned by non-profit and educational institutions affiliated with universities and schools as well as government owned organizations.

Textbook: Our textbook had a pretty good bit of information on this topic. It gave me a good idea of what I needed to research further because there wasn't much detail in the text. Once I read through it, I had a pretty good idea of what I needed to research more.