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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although I empathize with the desire to punish Jefferson Bragg forh is odious racist speech on the LSU Campus, I could not punish him and simultaneously overturn Brandenburg v. Ohio or Cohen v. California. I also believe that taking a closer look at Bragg’s case, one would find there are not enough moments to be considered action, that he could even be punished under Emerson’s expression-action theory.
ReplyDeleteEmerson’s expression-action theory scrutinizes the difference between one’s freedom of expression, which “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 & Herbeck). However, when the line crosses from expression to action, which can be controlled, an individual may be punishable. The question then becomes when exploring Bragg v. LSU, what can be considered action?
There are six key instances on the day of Bragg’s orientation as identified on the in-class handout, “Practicing Precedents.” With a simple analysis of each moment one is able to decipher whether he is actually punishable under Emerson’s philosophy.
Bragg’s t-shirt declaring, “Fuck Integration” highlighted upon the Confederate Flag and his statement concerning the ninth ward and his declaration of freedom of speech, cannot be considered action as they are neither instructions nor commands of preparation. Such statements are not directed at any individual and it is not an action of live conduct. The statements made were to no person in particular, rather they were made to the general public. Therefore, the declarations do not fall under Emerson’s provocation of anger (438-439, Tedford & Herbeck).
The final two moments of mention that occurred on the LSU Campus were Bragg’s remarks on the street corner to boycott classes that made reference to African-American culture and the hanging effigy of the African-American university president. I do not believe that under Emerson’s comments of sedition he would include Bragg’s remarks of class boycotts or the effigy hanging of the university president. There was no physical obstruction and I do not believe he was giving any specific instructions – rather he was persuading class members to avoid taking any class that may mention aspects of African-American culture. Bragg made no comments to any one individual while convincing classmates to boycott. Yet, under the expression-action theory, Bragg would be punishable of defamation by hanging the effigy. The hanging was directed to one specific individual – the university president – and harmed the presidents feelings, making a shift from expression to action. Obscenity is basically hollow within this case as identified in Freedom of Speech in the United States. Bragg’s boycott cannot even be punished under Emerson’s view of provocation of anger as he was not speaking to any one individual, nor was Bragg attempting to fight with any one individual. One must then decide whether a hanging of an effigy may be considered “speech…that is part of an act of violence” (439, Tedford & Herbeck).
While considering the other cases Feggi mentioned, including Virginia v. Black and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the only behavior punishable by Bragg is the hanging of the effigy. Taking this into account, I do not believe that Bragg should be punished overturning the past landmark cases protecting ones free speech.
Note** In the final paragraph I stated Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire would be overturned if Bragg was found punishable. However, I meant to cite that off the most recent cases including Virgina v. Black and Cohen v. California Bragg could only be punished for his hanging of the effigy.
ReplyDelete*I apologize for the confusion and inconvenience.
Feggi, in her analysis, makes good and intriguing points to argue that Jefferson Davis Bragg’s actions were controversial and harming to the students and faculty at Louisiana State University. I agree that Bragg was rightly suspended for hanging an image of the University president on their campus, because this act or expression was clearly toward the African-American president, which could be read as a possible threat. However, as much as I do agree that this student’s actions were not the most responsible, I would have to say that his freedom of expression and speech would still be protected under the Constitution. Especially if we were going to compare this case with Cohen v. California, were the words used in Bragg’s case any different that we should punish him for his words? The t-shirt that the student chose to wear did contain offensive speech, but I do not think that the statements were directly aimed at any one person that it would lead to harm or a clear and present danger. Though Bragg’s words were offensive and hurtful as Feggi argues, I would say that he would still be protected under the Constitution because there is no one individual who is being directly harmed by the shirt. Under Emerson’s expression-action theory, Emerson states that action is when speech becomes more than persuasion and it is actually when it becomes instructions and preparations. I would not say that what Bragg did would be considered instructions or preparations, but instead, that it would b considered expression, which would still be protected under Emerson’s theory. According to this theory, Bragg should be given the right to say what he said, because they were an expression of his own.
ReplyDeleteFeggi does a good job outlining the Bragg vs LSU and the City of Baton Rouge case. I like how she makes it clear, that she would like to see Bragg get punished, but she knows that he could possibly win his case. She uses Emerson’s theory of Expression action theory very well in communicating her argument. She found the perfect quote in Emerson’s argument in the statement, “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.” in order to argue against Bragg’s fight against the police. Feggi says the statement Bragg said to the officers was violence because the statement was said in front of anyone within listening distance (“Sonuvabitch! I have the right to say what I want to say”), however using the statement she already provided, I believe Bragg’s statement could be seen as violence to the officers and vice president solely because it was targeted at them for trying to get Bragg to change his clothes, not really the general public. However, using the same argument it could be seen that Bragg was directly inciting violence when he boycotted the African American culture classes, because he was directly going against a targeted group. An area I disagree with, is near the end when she says, “Bragg’s action offended and might have harmed so many people.” Technically he was expressing himself in clothing, boycott and hanging an effigy. I mean although they were offensive, I can see maybe only one (the boycott) possibly causing direct harm, the rest are more like expression which is really more offensive than harmful.
ReplyDelete