The guarantees the freedom of speech whereas it states:
“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.�

Over the years, the has struggled to determine exactly what constitutes protected speech. Some jurists believe that freedom of speech is unconditional while others believe that the places limitations on speech under certain conditions. The prevailing thought is the latter; whereas it grants a person the right not to speak. For example, declining to salute the flag of the United States as in the case of , 319 U.S. 624 (1943) or to engage in symbolic speech like flag burning as in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

In 1989, the United States Congress passed the Flag Protection Act (18 USC § 700) which reads: “Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.� There were several challenges to this act two of the seminal cases are Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman. In both cases, the actors set fire to the United States Flag as a form of protest. The question posed to the United States Supreme Court: Whether or not the First Amendment right of free speech protected their actions? The Court ruled that flag burning is considered protected speech under the First Amendment.

The Court has also been called upon to decide what is not protected speech such as inciting actions that would harm others (yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater), students making obscene speech during school sponsored events, Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), or to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration, , 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

In , Fraser a male student, gave a speech during a public assembly where he nominated another male student, used an “elaborate, graphic and explicit sexual metaphorâ€� aka “Double entendresâ€� which means that he used words capable of two meanings: (1) obvious interpretations (2) subtle interpretation usually sexually suggestive to describe him. Fraser’s speech was as follows:
“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 [long pause] between us and the best our school can be. He is firm enough to give it everything.”

Fraser was suspended for two days and the father filed a lawsuit in federal District Court alleging violates of Fraser’s First Amendment right to free speech. The Court ruled in favor of Fraser. Bethel appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision in favor of Fraser. Bethel appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of obscene and offensive language. Chief Justice Warren Burger concluded that the First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech and “it was perfectly appropriate for the school to disassociate itself to make the point to the pupils that vulgar speech and lewd conduct is wholly inconsistent with the “fundamental values” of public school education.â€�

In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, journalism students in were in the process of publishing a school-sponsored newspaper. One issue featured stories on teen pregnancy and divorce. The school’s principal thought the stories were inappropriate and prior to the publication, he deleted the two pages containing the stories without informing the journalism students. The students were upset because they had not been given the opportunity to make changes. The students felt their First Amendment rights had been violated, they filed suit in the . The Court sided with the school, ruling that the school had the authority to remove and regulate speech they deemed appropriate. The students appealed the decision to the . The appeals court reversed the lower court, finding that the paper was a “public forum” and that school officials could censor its content only under extreme circumstances. The school appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court and reversed the appellate court decision ruling that a school does not have to allow student speech if it is inconsistent with the schools’ educational policy.

The post What Is Freedom of Speech? first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Historically, have been subjected to racial discrimination throughout society. One of the more problematic areas of racial discrimination involved the sale and rental of property. Historically, refused to either sell or rent property to African Americans. Over the years, African-Americans have sought redress of these problems through the federal courts. The seminal case that illustrates this problem is Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968).

In this case, Mr. Joseph Lee Jones was not allowed to buy property from a White American due to his race. Mr. Jones filed a complaint before the against Alfred H. Mayer Co. praying for injunctive relief. Mr. Jones alleged in the complaint that the racial discrimination preventing him from buying property is violative of 42 § 1982 which reads:

“All citizens of the shall have the same right, in every , as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.�

The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals held that Section 1982 is applicable only to state owned/managed properties and not to private individuals selling their private properties. The ruled in Mr. Jones’s favor.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that Section 1982 is applicable to all kinds of racial discrimination in the sale and rental of properties whether the property is state owned/managed or owned by private individuals. The Court also ruled that Section 1982 was enacted with the intention to grant legal rights to Black Americans to buy and rent properties without restriction. The Court further ruled that Section 1982 is in line with the reading of the , which reads:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.�

The Court determined that depriving Blacks from buying properties from White Americans is analogous to continuing with the vestiges of slavery in direct conflict with the Congressional intent which was to abolish slavery and eradicate its existence from society. Moreover, the Court determined that removing the hurdles for Blacks to own properties is entirely consistent with the Congressional intent as legislated in Section 1982.
If your rights to sell and rent real and personal property are being violated contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York. We will review your claims thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Racial Discrimination in the Sale and Rental of Property first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..