Week 9’s Final

Part One Write an try out of at least 700 words. Comprehensive writing skills must be used. The prototypical Amendment to the Constitution bars Congress from infringing on the freedom of speech of the masses of the get together States. It does not prohibit private restrictions on speech. With this in mind, numerous an(prenominal) universities bear over the years instituted speech codes or perplex criminalize hate-speech. If you were in charge of a university what rules would you make for student conduct online? exempt your reasoning and support your answer with examples and other evidence. If our legal reality rightfully reflected our political rhetoric about liberty, the Statesns and especially American college and university students would be enjoying a truly remarkable freedom to speak and express moot ideas at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Virtually e very human beings official decl atomic number 18s a belief in freedom of speech. Politicians extol the virtue s of freedom and boast of Americas unique status as a nation of unbound expression.Judges pay homage to free speech in court opinions. steady several(prenominal) fringe parties communists and fascists who would create a totalitarian state if they were in power have praised the virtues of the freedom they guide for their survival. Few individuals speak more than emphatically on behalf of freedom of speech and expression, however, than university administrators, and few institutions more distinctly advertise their loyalty to this freedom than universities themselves.During the college application process, there is a very high probability that you received pamphlets, brochures, booklets, and catalogs that loudly proclaimed the universitys allegiance to free inquiry, academic freedom, diversity, dialogue, and tolerance. You may have believed these declarations, trusting that both national and private colleges and universities welcome all views, no matter how far outback(a) the mainstream, because they want safe difference and debate.Perhaps your own ideas were unusual or creative. You could be a liberal student in a conservative community, a religious student at a secular institution, or level an anarchist suffering nether institutional regulations. Regardless of your background, you most liable(predicate) saw college as the one place where you could go and hear around anythingthe one place where speech truly was free, where ideas were tried and tested under the keen and critical eyes of peers and scholars, where reason and values, not coercion, decided debate.Freedom and good responsibility for the exercise of ones freedom are ship canal of being human, not means adopted to achieve this or that token point of view. Unfortunately, ironically, and sadly, Americas colleges and universities are all too lots dedicated more to security review and indoctrination than to freedom and individual self-government. In nine to protect diversity and to en und isputable tolerance, university officials proclaim, views deemed hostile or offensive to some students and some persuasions and, indeed, some administrators are properly subjected to censorship under campus codes.In the pages that follow, you go out get hold of of colleges that enact speech codes that punish students for voicing opinions that simply outrage other students, that attempt to force religious organizations to accept leaders who are hostile to the message of the group, that restrict free speech to minuscule zones on enormous campuses, and that teach students sometimes from their very first day on campus that dissent, argument, parody, and steady critical thinking can be risky business. precisely put, at most of Americas colleges and universities, speech is far from free.College officials, in betraying the standards that they endorse publicly and that their institutions had, to the benefit of liberty, embraced historically, have failed to be trustees and keepers of so mething precious in American life. ThisGuideis an answer and, we hope, an antidote to the censorship and coercive indoctrination besetting our campuses. In these pages, you will obtain the tools you need to combat campus censors, and you will discover the dependable extent of your considerable free speech rights, rights that are useful lonesome(prenominal) if you insist upon them.You will learn that others have faced and overcome the censorship you confront, and you will discover that you have allies in the fight to have your voice heard. TheGuideis divided into four primary sections. This introduction issues a brief historical context for understanding the present climate of censorship. The stake section provides a basic introduction to free speech teachings. The third gear provides a series of real-world scenarios that demonstrate how the doctrines discussed in thisGuidehave been use on college campuses.Finally, a brief conclusion provides five practical step for fighting b ack against attempts to enforce coercion, censorship, and indoctrination. Part Two Write an screen of at least 700 words. Comprehensive writing skills must be used. among 1949 and 1987, the F breedness philosophy was an FCC rule designed to provide reasonable, although not inescapably equal opportunities in presenting oppose viewpoints in radio broadcasting in order to avoid one-sided presentations.The practice was repealed under President Reagan as part of a wider deregulation effort. Do you think the Fairness tenet should be revived, revised, or left dead? Why? TheFairness article of faithwas a policy of the United StatesFederal Communications Commission(FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders ofbroadcast licensesto both present controversial issues of public vastness and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commissions view, honest, impartial and balanced.The FCC decided to eliminate the ism in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC officially removed the langua ge that implemented the tenet The Fairness Doctrine had ii basic elements It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters ofpublic interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views It could be done through news segments, public personal business shows, or editorials.The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 theUnited States Supreme Courtupheld the FCCs generalrightto enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC wasobligedto do so. 3The courts well-grounded that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have wear away this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost. The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with theEqual Timerule.The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals precisely with political candidates. The Fairness Doctrine has been both defended and opposed on initiative Amendment grounds. Backers of the doctrine claim that listeners have the right to hear all sides of controversial issues. They believe that broad-casters, if left alone, would resort to partisan coverage of such issues. They travelling bag this claim upon the early history of radio.Opponents of the doctrine claim the doctrines chilling personnel dissuaded broadcasters from examining anything but safe issues. Enforcement was so subjective, opponents argued, ther e was never a bona fide way to determine before the fact what broadcasters could and could not do on the air without running afoul of the FCC. Moreover, they complain, print media enjoy full runner Amendment protection while electronic media were granted only second-class status. Ill be honest, Id never even heard of the Fairness Doctrine until I read this question.After looking it up on a few different sites, Id have to say Im still not entirely sure whether or not I think it should be reinstated. I receive both pros and cons to requiring licensed broadcast stations to present controversial public issues (which tends to apply mainly to political situations) in a fair, equal and honest way. I think this would create a more balanced seed of rational discourse andinformationfor the public on such issues and in this way serves the public interest.That being said, I think this is getting uncomfortably close to infringing upon freedom of the press and speech. I understand that the Fa irness doctrine has the best of intentions and has even served us well in the past, But often, even good legislation leads to increased powers and control for government. No matter how many checks and balances our government has, It only takes one government officials loose interpretation of a law in order to justify abusing his office and encroaching up the basic rights our constitution grants us.