|← Cross-Code Communication||The Business Communication →|
“Do, what make you happy -means be free!” Voltaire. What is freedom for you? Somebody said that freedom it is when you can go out to the street and shout every thing that you want. Another one said that is freedom is when you do every thing and go everywhere you want. They are both will be right, because freedom it is not some material thing, freedom it is more difficult category. It is difficult for us, because we live in freedom society, and it is hard to figure it out.
In April 26, 1983, student from Bethel High School, WashingtonDC, Matthew N. Fraser delivered a speech at school assembly about nominated class fellow for student elective office. Fraser used in own speech very abuse sexual metaphors, which led to the bad consequences. The crowd of students where were fourteen age young people starting to screaming, stomps, and showed obscene gestures. After that BethelSchool filed a lawsuit against the Fraser. The contest of speech was: "I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most [of] all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts - he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally - he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to the very end - even the climax, for each and every one of you. So, please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as he'll never come between us and the best our school can be. He is firm enough to give it everything." Long pause after the word "come" on oral delivery, but no comma in the written version, according to Matthew N Fraser. " “Bethel School District No. 403 ET AL. v. Fraser. A Minor. ET AL.” N.p., n.d Fry.
Before his speech, he discussed contents with two teachers, and they told to him that this speech may have serious consequences, but allowed say it to him. On the next day, teachers from the school decided to talk with students, because they are don’t know what it is, and what it is mean? School's reputation has been undermined. They are received many dissatisfied letters from parents, and they are asking to explain what it is.
Definitely, that his speech was rude and abused. Reputable school could not afford it, because one of the school rules is that students can not speak abuse words! But this was other sort situation. When teachers spoke to him, why he told it, he said that he mean exactly what he write, and did not mean any metaphors they started to push on him, and he break and recognize that he put in speech sexual context.
His father was a respondent and was in charge for it. His father wrote lawsuit that his son did not anything wrong and even, if his son said speech with sexual metaphors he has the right of freedom of speech. As damages, respondent should pay 12750 dollars. The court ruled that Fraser’s speech inflicted huge losses to the school reputation and to the mental health of students. Fraser’s speech heard about six hundred of students, half of them was fourteen years and younger!
Fraser was too young for understanding what he did. Maybe he just wants to be a hero in the eyes of others, end probably thinking that it will be as a little joke? But his joke grew up in to the huge scandal. Is it right to punish him or his family? Or who had responsibilities for his speech, or is it really so wrong that he wants to said it?
We are live in the independent country and want to be free, in our action and in our thoughts, of course if it did not harm to the nature and social life. Because freedom, it is an integral part of our life. But we have things that called censorship that try to regulated stream of abuses from TV, radio, newspaper and art. The main thesis statement of censorship that the government can put limits on information that they consider offensive. The censorship it is form of restriction of freedom speech.
Researchers show a significant difference between censorship in democratic and totalitarian counties. In the democratic country, the censorship provides internal and external security of the country, with the maximum respect for the rights and freedoms of peoples. In the totalitarian country, government censorship changes significantly. In this case, the government performed control and restraining functions, and very similar to the functions of repressive bodies. Censorship in totalitarian country not just controlled information they are even controlled art process and encroaches to the privacy life.
In case with Fraser, the freedom of speech was violated by the censorship. But, on the other hand, freedom of speech to protect society, from the offensive information! U.S. law can not blamed writers by the content that he wrote. But they can blame by the slander and by the invasion to the private life, but not for the points of view.
Different points of view we can see in the far past. The great philosophers as an Immanuel Kant considered that freedom of speech should not be controlled by anyone, and Hegel considered opposite, that freedom of speech should controlled by the power. Introducing different forms of censorship, the government told that they do it for national security, and with needed to fight with extremism, spread anarchistic ideas and moral corruption of society. The votes in support of censorship coming not only from the government, it is coming from private organizations and church.
In the other hand, the censorship do not decide social problems, but only helps to keep silent about their existence. The amount of authors is growing up, and with the internet, it is almost impossible. Critics also said that appearance of censorship it is showed that country tries to hide some problems and solution of them. As for example, main church in Russia calls for the “morel censorship”. It showed that church can not influenced on morals of society.
In the XIX almost was not a controversy about freedom of speech. Aliens Act and prodding to revolt, passed by Congress in 1798, severely restricted the right to criticize high-ranking federal officials, but after two or four years, they have expired or been canceled, and many people accused of violating them, were acquitted or if found guilty, soon pardoned. Protected by the Constitution, whether nonverbal behavior if it is used to spread ideas?
Time and place do not allow even a cursory study of these and other issues raised in the courts over the past 85 years. However, a review of certain principles can give an idea of what has come to mean "freedom of speech" in the American life and law. This is reviewing may also serve to illustrate some of the differences between the United States and other free and democratic societies.
First, the "freedom of speech", like almost all other rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, imposes a restriction on the behavior of only the public authorities. Citizens and organizations, unless they are in agreement with the public authorities, freely establish and apply their own standards of speech in matters of privacy. In some other countries, guarantees of freedom of speech impose constitutional limits not only the government but also to the citizens and organizations. For example, the Costa Rican Constitution states: "No one shall be persecuted or prosecuted for expressing their opinion ...".
The right of freedom of speech guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights, which was signed by the members of the European Council, at November 4, 1950. and became to the work at September 3 1953. The article of the 10 convention is that;” Every one has right of freedom of speech, and expression own opinion”. This right including: the freedom to hold own opinion, receive and impart information and ideas without interference of state authorities and regardless of borders. Preordered this rights formed obligations and responsibilities, can be linked with circumstances and penalties are foreseen by the law that are necessary in democratic society.
The article 17 from Convention protected the rights that invested in it about human freedom” Every one country or some gropes that has rights to do something for destruction the rights and freedom, that including in this Convention or in their limitation”. With social development, and with complication of political structure, and with the value of the democratic way and historical movement, the problem of freedom of speech joined the list of the first problems.
The troubles can be in right and in wrong place, as a pig in the bed rather then in the barnyard. The offensive words as a pig can be adopted in the right case and unacceptable in other.
It is obviously that Frasers speech was not adopted in the school, because school it is not beck yard or something else. On the other hand his phrases and metaphors will be adopted with his friends or his peers, and can be as regular comments. If its true, and if whole audience were consisted from the teenagers, with whom he spoke every day, we can state that he should know that school can punish him for such a trick?
Probably not! This is sort of myth that he decided to create and then perform this speech, for harm for the school reputation if he definitely know that this will lead to the expulsion from the school. And it is so wrong and abnormally that in democratic country, discussion issue like this, about freedom of speech. The court was adopted contemporary society standards with sexual connotations, and this court had to pass this case to another, if he can decided what to do with it?
Fraser didn’t anything wrong. And if it happened now probably it case did not have to the court! Yes he is use abuse and sexual metaphors, yes we have respect to your self and don’t want to heard it, but he was just a kid, and don’t understand all things. And even if there were underage kids they are don’t understand what he said.
We should to watching what we are talking, because it can be detrimental for us, and should exist people who will watching what we say. But we should to understand where it really was specially, and where it was just a kid!