Bragg v. LSU and City of Baton Rouge

For my second post, I chose The Bragg v. LSU and City of Baton Rouge
A young man, whose name is Jefferson Davis Bragg, made a controversial action at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. Bragg came to his first orientation and wore a T-shirt with an image of the Confederate flag and words “Fuck Integration”. The bottom part of the T-shirt also had “The Ninth Ward got what it deserved” written on it. The T-shirt that he wore was inappropriate and violated LSU’s dress code. The University officers and vice president acted quickly, and told Bragg to go back to his dorm and change his clothes; however, Bragg did not listen and shouted loudly, “Sonunvabitch, I have a right to say what I want to say.” Bragg also gathered a group of white students, and together they boycotted any classes that involved African-American culture. His action made offended many, and those students began shouting at him. Bragg action continued. Later that night, he used a rope and noose to hang an image of the University president, who is an African-American. He hung his image on an oak tree next to the university’s Memorial Chapel. Bragg was suspended, and the police officers charged him of “the threatening to cause bodily harm” to the university president.

Reading Bragg’s case, I wanted him to lose. Based on our discussion in class, I realized that he can win the case easily. We, as individuals, have our freedom of speech, which allows us to say and write anything we want. Based on Thomas I. Emerson’s theory: The Expression-Action Theory, he clearly writes, “freedom of expression includes the right to form and hold beliefs on any subject and to communicate those beliefs to others by whatever medium one chooses” (438, Tedford and Herbeck). Emerson's theory is a democratic way to express ourselves to achieve self-fulfillment. However, based on Emerson, not all speech is about expression, sometimes they are also over the line and turns into an action. Expression is fully protected and action can be controlled. What Bragg has done was an action that can be controlled. He was expressing himself; however, he was just over the line. The officers politely told him to go back and change his clothes but refused to and shouted at the officers. The “Sonuavabitch” statement is an offensive word that can offend an individual as well as a group of people. His action, which was noose hangs his president effigy, was also an unreasonable action that can be punished. Emerson writes, “when words are spoken face to face, in a direct encounter, so as to provoke a fight, the speech becomes conduct that is part of an act of violence and can be punished” (439, Tedford and Herbeck). What Bragg had done was violence because he said his statement directly in front of anyone within listening distance.
Furthermore, his also wore a T-shirt that said “Fuck Integration” and “The Ninth Ward got what it deserved”, is one speech that would allow to be punished. Based on “Bad Tendency”, “Punish words that might offend or harm, esp. “weak” women, youth, and national security” (60, Tedford and Herbeck). I think Bragg should be punished because he wore and said many “fighting words” that may offend and harm people. Although his statement was not an immediate problem; however, it was harm, offend, and no respect to people surround him.

Under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (169, Tedford and Herbeck) there is two level theory freedom of speech. The two levels are worthwhile and worthless speech. Based on Chaplinsky v. N.H., Bragg’s statement was involved in worthless speech because he said “fighting words”. He provoked bad language that had the possibility to incite violence. The Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy said:
"No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name, nor make any noise or exclamation in his presence and hearing with intent to deride, offend or annoy him, or to prevent him from pursuing his lawful business or occupation" (169, Tedford and Herbeck).

Bragg’s action should be punished because he addressed an offensive and hurtful words to a group of people within the school. In addition, he made a lot of noise and exclamation in his presence. Based on Chaplinsky v. N.H. all action that Bragg did would allow him to be punished. The “Fuck Integration” on his T-shirt, “The Ninth Ward Got What it . . .” the Confederate flag on T-shirt, and hanging effigy of university president should be punished. All the actions that he did were over the line, and it caused threat to the people around him.
Lastly, the level of scrutiny is a substantial reason needed or an intermediate scrutiny. He had a “clear & present danger” (49, Tedford and Herbeck). As I already mentioned above, Bragg's action offended and might have harmed so many people (students and professors) who surrounded him. He also offended the president of the University, who is an African-American. Based on Virginia v. Black, he could be punished because he targeted someone and intimidated his principal. He also urged other white students to boycott classes that included African-American culture. His action was clear, and he presented danger for people who surrounded him, especially African-American people; for example, there must be African American students in the university who will feel offended by Bragg’s action. If the police officers did not take his action seriously, there could have been big possibilities for him to do something that will harm someone’s life.

In conclusion, I do believe that Bragg should be punished for what he had done. His action was too much. He offended so many people, and clearly presented a danger in the university area. I know that an individual has a freedom to express his or herself, but in this case he presented a threat for the people around him and disturbed the peace.

Blog Post # 1... (01/18)

For number one, I think “Laws governing communication should primarily protect an individual universal civil liberty even if asserted against the group”. I think individual needs freedom to say whatever they want. I come from Indonesia. For sixteen years of my life, I had spent in Jakarta, Indonesia. For those people, who do not know, Indonesia is the first largest Muslim population in the world. I am a Christian, and I know how difficult life is when I become the minority. Based on The Universal Declaration, Article number 18, I personally belief that we have the freedom to choose what we believed for. I know that in Indonesia, people do not believe such a thing. The government tries to persuade everybody to believe Islam, and sometimes they force us to become a Muslim. Based on our discussion in class about Burstyn vs. Wilson, the government should not take part with any religion problems because there is a separation of church and State; however, in Indonesia government is the one who control everything. Therefore, I need a protection for individual to have the freedom to say and choose their path of life. We, who are non Muslim, are minority in Indonesia, and I personally feel that we have been force to move into Islam. Religion will always become a big problem in Indonesia, and people, who believe in Jesus or other religion other than Muslim, will never have their freedom to declare what they believe in. Based on article number 19 from The Universal Declaration, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”. Therefore, I need a protection for myself, so that I can express my opinion freely. With a law of communication I will feel protected. I will not feel fear to against the majority of Muslim in Indonesia because I know I have the right, and the freedom to express my own opinion.

From my own point of view, every people, no matter what his job is, should have the same right of free speech everywhere. I agree that filmmakers in Dubai should have the same rights of free speech as filmmakers’ from Europe and United States. However, in many countries it is so hard to have the same rights of free speech. For me, the country where the filmmakers come from is important. I do not fully believe that filmmakers in Dubai will have the same rights of free speech as in Europe or the United States. The reasons they will not have the same rights of free speech is because their country is less popular than Europe and United States. The majority of people who live in Dubai are Muslim; therefore, I believe that Muslim countries will not have the same rights of free speech as any other countries. The reasons why they do not have the same right are because of Muslim’s culture. Muslim’s culture has so many restrictions. Other countries also see Muslim’s countries as lower class, and that are the reasons why it is hard to have the same rights of free speech like in Europe or the United States.

I believe filmmakers in Dubai are talented. As U.S Supreme Court tells us in page 501 that “It cannot be doubted that motion pictures are a significant medium for the communication of ideas. Their importance as an organ of public opinion is not lessened by the fact that they are designed to entertain as well as to inform”. They have many great ideas that they want to express. From their great ideas we can learn so many things about Dubai. There is a possibility that we can learn about their culture and people. If they have the same rights, they can and will promote Dubai, so people will not under estimate Dubai. Nowadays, Dubai starts to grow up. Many foreign people come to Dubai for holiday. Dubai starts to attract tourist’s attention, and Dubai’s filmmakers can help Dubai to attract people’s attention even more. However, it is hard for them to make a movie, when the law does not support them. Based on The Universal Declaration, Article 1, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. This article makes my argument stronger that from the very first time we born, we already have same rights like anybody else. In Article 27 (1) from The Universal Declaration of Human rights tell us that “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.” This statement empowers us to believe that we have the same equal rights everywhere. Even though on article 27 (2), it is stated some limitation, but still, we have the same rights everywhere.

In conclusion, I want to empower all people from all over the country to seek the same rights of freedom of speech. I know that country like Indonesia, Dubai, Malaysia, and many others still suffer from freedom of speech; however, in Bible or even in the Universal Declaration is written that we all have the same equal rights from freedom of speech.