Abraham 1 Commonplace Book 1: Cover Sheet Writer: Manal Abraham Issue: Is Free Speech Really Free?

Overview My argument is Is Free Speech Really Free? I would like to start with the meaning of the First Amendment and free speech and go from there with information I research. In this first Commonplace Book, I started with discussing an overview of the freedom of speech and plan to narrow my search and include case law and opinions from society to support my argument. I have not yet chosen a particular side as of now, but as I continue my research I will narrow my opinion towards the subject. Main points to research What is the First Amendment? How freedom of speech has been portrayed in the eyes of the courts. For instance, using previous cases and scenarios in which freedom of speech was granted or denied. How the freedom of speech has been portrayed in the eyes of society. How society has reacted to hate crime laws and whether it violates our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech. Potential Discourse Community Audiences: I think this is more of an issue that relates to a broad array of audiences. This can include particular religious communities and also can include those in politics and government law. It is a relevant argument to all citizens of America as it is one of their freedoms that is being discussed. Collection Strategy: My strategy is to begin with looking up information regarding the First Amendment and give a broad overview of the subject matter. That was basically what this Commonplace Book consists of. From there I will go on and narrow my research down to get to the heart of the argument on whether free speech and really free. This includes looking up case law as to how the courts interpret the First Amendment with the changing times and through opinions on how society believes the First Amendment should be interpreted.

Abraham 2

Source 1 The First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 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 First Amendment of the United States Constitutions establishes the freedom of speech, press, and religion. This amendment sets forth one of the freedoms and rights that American citizens have. This will be the basis of all that is discussed below. U.S. Const. amend. I Source 2 Big Question: What does free speech really mean?: Discovery Channel But what does free speech really mean? And who decides how the First Amendment should apply to everyday life? According to various U.S. courts, free speech is not limited to spoken or written words. It also includes both pure and symbolic speech. For example, citizens are permitted to speak up about politics and share their opinions, but the First Amendment also guarantees Americans the right to express themselves through art and written words and through symbolic actions or performances, including flag-burning and other forms of protest. This article by the Discovery Channel discusses what our right of the freedom of speech really means. Since this amendment was broadly written around 200 years ago, when issues arise within the limits of freedom of speech it is up to the courts to determine what is permitted under the First Amendment. Now the courts have permitted the First Amendment to represent both oral and symbolic speech, as in actions, performances, flag-burning, etc. I chose this article because it gives a good overview of what the freedom of speech truly means and how it is interpreted. It also mentions landmark cases which made important decisions on what can be limited or protected under the First Amendment. A video is also embedded in this article discussing the relationship between information and freedom and how he believes that the world should be more open and people should be able to present what information they please. Turner, Bambi. "Big Question: What does 'free speech' really mean? : Discovery Channel." Discovery Science, History, Space, Tech, Sharks, News! : Discovery Channel. N.p., 4 Feb. 2012.

Abraham 3 Web. 19 Sept. 2013. <http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/big-question-freespeech-really-mean.htm> Source 3 Limits of Freedom of Speech

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests for example, national security, justice or personal safety override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help. This forum directly states that there are in fact some limitations on the First Amendment. While freedom of speech and expression gives citizens the right to say and express how they like, there are some limitations when it regards the safety of our society. I chose this source because it describes the limits of freedom of speech, and when freedom of speech and expression can be violated. Although, the government cannot take away a freedom and right we have, they can put regulations on them to limit what we can say, and what crosses the line.

"Education for Freedom Lesson 4." The Freedom Forum. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2013. <http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm> Source 4 Police Brutalize Ray McGovern as Hillary Clinton Talks Free Speech As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday about the failures of foreign leaders to respect people's freedoms, a 71-year-old U.S. veteran Army officer, a man who spent 27 years in the CIA and delivered presidential daily briefs, a peace activist and proponent of nonviolence, the man who famously confronted Donald Rumsfeld for his war lies, the man who drafted our letter to Spain and delivered it to the Spanish Embassy on Monday, our friend Ray McGovern turned his back in silence. As Clinton continued to speak about respecting the rights of protesters, her guards -- including a uniformed policeman and an unidentified plainclothed official -- grabbed Ray, dragged him off violently, brutalized him, double-cuffed him with metal handcuffs, and left him bleeding in jail. As he was hauled away (see video), Ray shouted "So this is America?" Clinton went right on mouthing her hypocrisies without a pause. This article, with a video embedded in it, contains an instance where a man, Ray McGovern was dragged out of Hillary Clintons speech for expressing himself by turning his back on Hillary

Abraham 4 Clinton. The irony in this is that Hillary Clinton was speaking about freedom of speech in other countries, and as she was speaking, a man, who was a U.S. Veteran Army officer and who worked for the CIA for 27 years, was violently pulled out, cuffed and left bleeding in jail for three hours. This video and article discusses the issue that if we are a country that represents free speech, why are we dragging a man off in handcuffs just for expressing himself? And if something like this happened, and can happen again, is free speech really free?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=My29YT1T4R4

Swanson, David. Police Brutalize Ray McGovern as Hillary Clinton Talks Free Speech. Truthout 18 Feb. 2011 Web. <http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/94579:police-brutalize-raymcgovern-as-hillary-clinton-talks-free-speech>

Abraham 5

Reflection I am discussing the argument of whether freedom of speech is truly free. This is an argument that is not only discussed in the political realm, but also in the general public. It is an issue that affects each and every person in society of all kinds of discourse communities, because it is a freedom and a right to all Americans. The First Amendment is the freedom of speech and expression, and I would like to discuss what the limits are that govern it. In this first Commonplace Book, I have compiled four sources that reflect a broad overview of what the First Amendment is and what free speech is. I pulled the actual First Amendment of the United States Constitution as one of my sources, because that is the basis of the whole argument. Since it was written about 200 years ago, it is broad and gives us no clarification on limits regarding free speech. I chose an article on what free speech really means, by a writer for the discovery channel. It explains what the court has expanded the freedom of speech to encompass, for instance speech, art, symbolisms, protests, etc. This gives my audience a good overview of how the courts have interpreted the amendment up to today. My next source discusses the limits of freedom of speech that have been interpreted by the courts as of today. It is hard to limit a freedom and right that citizens are entitled to, but at some points someone may cross the line of free speech and it can become a hate crime, or maybe something that results in actions (fighting words). I then went and chose an article that represents a time when someones rights to freedom of expression were taken away. This man was a respected American citizen who was in the military and worked for the CIA. I felt that it portrayed an unnecessary limit on freedom of expression. I plan on finding more articles and case law on how the courts interpret the First Amendment in particular instances and defining, as well as narrowing, my argument. I would like to go into the limits of freedom of speech and discuss whether hate crime laws are necessary in protecting the public or if they violate our rights of free speech and expression under the First Amendment. I also would like to go into when a person crosses the line of freedom of speech and when someones expression or words can become a hate crime. With further research I will be able to better define my argument and choose a position that I believe is right for our society.

Abraham 6

Commonplace Book 2: Cover Sheet Writer: Manal Abraham Issue: Right to Freedom of Speech in America Compared to Other Countries Overview My main focus in this CPB was the right to free speech in America compared to other countries. It gave a lot of insight to the laws, rights, and views of other countries as to how they handle violations of free speech and the limitations they have one them. Main points to research Freedom of Speech and the Media Freedom of Speech in America vs Western Countries Hate Speech in America vs. other countries Potential Discourse Community Audiences: International Organizations For instance, one that I used in my CPB was Reporters Without Borders, a group that supports Freedom of the Press and Speech all around the world. Legislation Collection Strategy: I focused my research on searching outside of only US sources. My main focus is on USs right to Freedom of Speech but in order to form a better argument I felt it was necessary to search outside of one countries views and compare them. I used an image by an organization in support of free speech and press all across the world, and also a YouTube video from a professor in the US, but who lived in New Zealand. I used a blog post from a man who lived in both the UK and America so he was able to effectively compare the two countrys rights and base an opinion on them.

Abraham 7 Source 1 Reporters Without Borders This is an image I chose to include because of the powerful message it sends. The image does not have a title that I could locate, but shows a man with a hand covering his mouth, and over the hand that is covering the mans mouth is an open mouth that looks to be yelling. The original image was used for a campaign for press freedom, which was organized by Reporters Without Borders. The image was later changed to add the wording on the bottom, NOBODY...should be able to impede Freedom of Speech by Guido101 and discussed in a forum called deviantART. The image is very powerful and brings to life the freedoms that America has regarding free speech and sends the important message that the right to speak freely should not be taken away from Americans or anyone else around the world.
Original Image: http://nerdshares.tumblr.com/post/126067499/gpict-reporters-without-borders-with-therecent

Edited version: http://guido101.deviantart.com/art/Freedom-of-Speech-34183042 Reporters Without Borders. Photograph with man with hand over his mouth. n.d. Reporters Without Borders. Web. 15 Oct. 2013. Source 2 American Exception - Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech by Adam Liptak What were learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins, Mr. Steyn added. Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world. This article was written in The New York Times, an international newspaper, and discusses an article that was published in a Canadian magazine that was on trial because it printed an article similar to those that magazines and newspapers in America print almost everyday. The article goes into detail on the differences of Americas right to free speech compared to Canada, as well as Western countries. In the article Liptak discusses how the U.S. is more lenient when it comes to punishing those who cross the line of free speech to hate speech. I chose this article because it is a great way to see the comparisons in the argument of free speech versus hate speech and how countries around the world handle it. Although other countries do have the right of freedom of speech, they have hate speech laws that limit the use of freedom of speech. This article leans

Abraham 8 towards the side of the argument that Americas use of freedom of speech is what distinguishes them from those countries in the West. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& Liptak, Adam. American Exception - Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech. The New York Times. Web. 12 June 2008. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. Source 3 From Sheep to Alligators: Freedom of Speech in the USA (compared to the UK) By Paul One of the main ways that freedom of speech is perceived in a subtly different way in Europe, compared to the US, is in regard to extremist politics. Pretty much all European countries have laws against stirring up religious, or racial hatred and people generally perceive this as a necessary evil, rather than an infringement on their rights. This is a blog post that focuses solely on the differences of the USs right to freedom of speech and Britains right to freedom of speech. This post includes some examples of issues that have happened in both America and the UK, and how they were handled in each country. An example that was used was the Quran burning in Gainesville, Florida and a similar Quran burning issue in the UK. America convinced Terry Jones to stop the book burning the first time, but the second time he attempted to burn the book it was ignored and he went through with it. In the UK when the same issue occurred, the people who did the burning were arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred. I chose to include this post because it is a personal post from someone who has lived in both the UK and America. He had the ethos to validly compare the differences of the two countrys forms of freedom of speech and how hate crimes and speech is depicted in both countries. He believes that America has a good approach to freedom of speech, but a weakness of it being so absolute is that it can appear to pander to extremist elements and publicity seekers at times. http://fromsheeptoalligators.blogspot.com/2011/07/freedom-of-speech-in-usa-compared-touk.html Paul. Freedom of Speech in the USA (compared to the UK). From Sheep to Alligators. From Sheep to Alligators. 4 July 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

Abraham 9 Source 4 YouTube Video: Should Hate Speech Be Illegal? By Bloomberg Law And we must remember, I think, that a major part of this puzzle that we havent talked about is that racist or Anti-Semitic discourses are now prohibited in most workplaces...its prohibited on most campuses. Broadcasters wouldnt tolerate it for a moment, in terms of their broadcasting. So even though we don't have state level or municipal laws laid out, we do have a highly regulated marketplace of ideas In this video Jeremy Waldron, a professor at New York University Law School discusses a book called The Harm in Hate Speech. The book regards other democracies that prohibit certain types of speeches, publications, and groups if they will likely have the effect of hatred against an identifiable group of persons. The video is a very eye-opening video in that it shows many hate groups that were formed against others in the past. I chose the quote above because I believe Waldron is trying to say that there are limitations already implemented in some areas on our free speech. On school campus, at work, in broadcasting, there are limitations as to what you can say or do. Waldron believes that if we did permit hate speech laws in the US, Americans would have to be more mindful of the limits of free speech. And that that thoughtfulness may be more desirable, even if it did open up more intervention from our legislation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpcSPsXCqtQ Bloomberg Law. Should Hate Speech be Illegal. Online video clip. YouTube. Youtube, 27 Jun. 2012. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

Abraham 10 Reflection This Commonplace Book was very interesting to research. My focus in this Commonplace Book was Americas right of free speech and hate speech compared to other countries rights and laws to free/hate speech. I got a lot of insight into how freedom of speech and hate speech laws are depicted and created in other countries compared to in America. It is obvious in the above sources that there are far less limitations in America, whereas in other countries there are hate speech laws in place that limit the freedom to speak about others hatefully. Most of the above sources are supportive of the idea of having hate speech laws in America in order to limit speech towards particular groups of people. This surprised me, but three of those sources, the video, the article and the blog post were written and voiced by people who have lived in other parts of the world before they lived in America. They were able to effectively compare them to other areas of the world because of that as well. All three of them were very persuasive in their own ways to how they viewed their argument. The quote I used from the article from The New York Times was interesting to me. How it states that the First Amendment distinguishes America from other countries was an intriguing way to look at the right to freedom of speech in America. America is one of the only countries who has the right to almost absolutely speak freely, with no real consequences. The only stipulation really is that you cannot say anything that constitutes as imminent danger or threat or something that is untrue. Though, a lot of times libel and slander cases get thrown out before they make it to court. This is a great contrast to the freedoms of other countries. In contrast to the other sources views, the image was one that supported free speech indefinitely. I felt the image was the most powerful and effective in getting their side of the argument across. The original image had no words on it, but there was another version of the image that only had the change of words added to the bottom. In my opinion, the image didnt even need words to go along with it. It was powerful enough by itself. It really captured how Americans view and cherish our right of free speech with the mouth over the hand covering the mans mouth. They say pictures are worth a thousand words, and I feel like this picture spoke them.

Abraham 11

Commonplace Book 3: Cover Sheet Writer: Manal Abraham Issue: Free Speech - Abuse or Not Overview My main focus in this last CPB will be to bring in sources regarding the law and personal preferences on whether free speech is being abused and hate speech laws should be put in place or if free speech in the U.S. should remain as it is. Main points to research Hate Speech against religions Hate Speech against homosexuals Abuse of Free Speech Whether Hate Crimes Threaten Free Speech Potential Discourse Community Audiences: This issue relates to an audience that already know of the issue and are interested in the debate between hate speech and free speech. Legislation is also a Discourse Community it relates to. International Organizations Collection Strategy: I began by looking up articles, or personal posts regarding free speech abuse. I looked up Supreme Court cases and decisions in which hate speech was used, and free speech was abused.

Abraham 12

Source 1 Debating Hate Speech Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easyof course! I chose this article from AmericanBar.org because it discusses cases in which the Supreme Court erred in making a decision. The two cases presented were based on actions that were done, instead of words being spoken, and both were written off as free speech. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), a 14 year old boy lit a cross on fire on the lawn of the only black family in the neighborhood. Instead of focusing on the act itself, the Court focused on the motivation for the criminal behavior. I chose this article because it accurately depicts a case where a hateful act was done and nothing happened as a result because our First Amendment right is too broad. The article also discusses Libertarian and Communitarian perspectives. They discuss how the Court took a libertarian approach on R.A.V., in that they did not want to inhibit the free speech of a person, when they should have found a medium between a libertarian approach and communitarian approach. Communitarians believe that protecting the society is the most important goal and that an individuals right to free speech may be limited in the interests of the community. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/deba te_hate.html Debating Hate Speech. American Bar Association. n.d. Web. 15 November 2013. Source 2 Snyder v. Phelps 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) This case discusses an incident where Fred Phelps and his followers at the Westboro Baptist Church went to a military funeral and held picket signs with degrading statements on them, such as Thank God for Dead Soldiers, God Hates Fags, and Dont Pray for the USA. They were at the funeral of Matthew Snyder when they decided to display these signs outside of the church where they held the service. Albert Snyder, Matthews father, then sued Phelps. The issue in the case was whether Westboro's signs and comments while picketing Matthew Snyder's funeral related to matters of public concern and were, thus, entitled to greater protection under the Free

Abraham 13 Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The final ruling of the court was that it was protecting under the First Amendment, because Phelps and his followers were speaking on matters of public concern. I chose this case because it is yet another case in which people were discriminatory and hateful to others, and it was written off as free speech. Clear limitations on Freedom of Speech are necessary in order for Americans to get justice when they have been wronged. Snyder v. Phelps 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) Source 3 Hernando student lied about seeing Muslim student sit during Pledge, officials say by Tony Marrero ...she confronted the girl, told her she should stand during the pledge and, according to her own account and a school report, said, Take that thing off your head and act like you're proud to be an American. This is an article that discusses a student, Heather Lawrence, who discriminated against a Muslim girl in a headscarf at a school in Florida. Allegedly the Muslim girl did not stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and Heather took it upon herself to confront, as mentioned in the caption above. The school handled the situation in a respectful manner, giving Heather a five day suspension for religious discrimination against another student. After a while, though, Heather admitted that she fabricated the part of the story concerning when the girl did not stand up for the Pledge, so she could go up and say something to her. Teachers were able to vouch for the Muslim girl and say that the girl did, in fact, stand for the Pledge, and Heather is lying. According to Heathers referral she began to rant that she was enlisting into the army and was going to Iraq, and that because the Muslim girl looked Middle Eastern, that made her an enemy because all Iraqis are Middle Eastern. I chose this article because it is a perfect example of when a Muslim girl was discriminated against and action was taken against it. Implementing something equivalent to this in our governmental system will allow justice to be served against not only Muslims, but all religious groups.

Abraham 14 http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/hernando-student-lied-about-seeing-muslimstudent-sit-during-pledge/1032571 Marrero, Tony. Hernando student lied about seeing Muslim student sit during Pledge, officials say. Tampa Bay Times. 31 August 2009. Web. 15 November 2013. Source 4 Freedom of Speech and Expression...Most Abused Rights by Kaye Grogan Freedom of speech and freedom of expression does not give a person the right to do things that are detrimental to society as a whole. When people have a problem conducting themselves in a proper manner they have to be reigned in. This is an opinion article by a freelance writer who writes about the different ways in which the First Amendment is the most abused right Americans have. She discusses how so many things that are considered wrong and offensive, such as pornography, are protected under freedom of expression, but freedoms associated with religion are met with disdain, and attempts to suppress those of faith is gaining momentum. I chose this article because it accurately depicts one persons opinion of the abuse of our First Amendment right. She brings valid examples and statements that will cause those reading it to stop and think about what they are saying or doing in the future. She expresses that just because the First Amendment gives us the right to freely express ourselves, it should not give us the right to abuse other people, which is a powerful and very true statement. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/grogan/051129 Grogan, Kaye. Freedom of Speech and Expression...Most Abused Rights. Renew America. 29 November 2005. Web. 1 November 2013

Abraham 15 Reflection This Commonplace Book was more based upon case law that I found, along with an article and opinion article to support my claim that there should be some type of clear limitation on our First Amendment right. With all of the sources that I have pulled throughout this project it is easy to see that thoughts are scattered all over the place. There are many arguments that are in favor of the freedoms that we have now, and keeping it that way, and why it differentiates us from other countries that do have hate speech laws. America has hate speech laws set to protect religions, race, sexual orientation, etc., but they are not all encompassing. Daily, people are getting away with saying, posting, and doing things that is considered discriminatory and degrading to others. The law set as of today is that anything said that is considered an imminent threat and will result in violence is in violation of the First Amendment. But things are taken differently by different people. For instance, one thing said to someone can have a different effect if said to another person. Human being are an unpredictable species, and as a nation we have find a balance in what we can. And one of those things is taking action and passing laws that support limits on the First Amendment, so as to establish clear lines on what can and cannot be said or posted. All in all, I feel that I have collected a sufficient amount of sources and according to the material I have gathered most of it points in the direction that free speech is free speech, but there is still sufficient information that points to America needing limitations on what can and cannot be said. There are so many hate groups and hate crimes, as well as hate media, and until there is some sort of protection for those victim to it I think this is still an argument worth arguing for.