U.S.A.

Bill of Rights Essay

When James. T Laney issued an edict at Emory University that states that discriminatory harassment directed at any person or group that has the purpose or reasonably foreseeable effect of creating an offensive, demeaning, intimidating or hostile environment will be banned or punished, he did not realize he was disallowing students their basic first amendment rights. The first amendment of the United States Constitution states that 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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This first amendment is really put in place to add into the constitution the freedoms that many Americans wished to have under British rule, but these basic rights of free expression, speech, press, and religion, have a profound significance to all Americans today, and today the amendment is still being interpreted. A fine example of how the first amendment must be re-examined in present-day occurred when James Laney tried to prevent an act that occurred on his campus daily that is detested by all; bullying. Mr. Laney thought that if you banned students from any and all discriminatory harassment, than things would be peachy keen, and people would stop being offended by the views of others. People arent always going to agree with each other, so arguments are bound to occur, and trying to suppress the ideas and free expression of his students merely to avoid a surething is just downright inexcusable. Mr. Laney was somehow confused as to how his new regulation was restricting rights when he argued that the speech of some must be curtailed to promote the free speech of others, who do not feel free to speak when they are bullied. The first amendment does not make room for people who dont feel free to speak; in reality, nothing is stopping these people from expressing their thoughts besides fear of the opinions of others, and James Laney should not be able to limit anyones rights period. No matter what kind of person you are, where you are from, or what kind of ideas you are expressing, the first amendment will cater to your need and right of free speech. Even with the most good-natured intentions, you have not, and will never, be able to limit the right to free speech of citizens, and even though Mr. Laney was trying to prohibit any speech that any individual or group may find offensive, he was doing so without a real fair interpretation of the first amendment. Despite the first amendment being written what seems ages ago, the relevance to society today has had no real loss of meaning, and it is continually protecting the rights of citizens everywhere. Mark Sirota. Free to Speak, but Willing to Listen and Learn; First Amendment Peril. The New York Times April 25th 1990. September 6th 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/25/opinion/lfree-to-speak-but-willing-to-listen-and-learn-first-amendment-peril-343290.html.