Fluent Essays

TopicYour research paper will be a detailed examination of one issue related to the First Amendment--freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government (ie protest).I chose the problem between freedom of the press and Privacy. I chose this theme because I can always see the scandals of many celebrities on social media and news. The exposure of personal privacy will undoubtedly have a great impact on them, even if what he does may be insignificant. The media likes to report on the personal lives of celebrities because they can bring a large number of readers. If they choose an obscure person and then expose his private life, it sounds shameless. We have the right to freedom of the press, so that things that need attention can be spread, such as when something unfair to people happens.Freedom of the press has a problem with personal privacy. The media likes to report star scandals, because a large number of people like to watch these, and they dont care about the impact on others.But we also need press freedom to prevent the government from abusing power. request_1_.docx sample_research_paper_hair__2__1_.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Topic Your research paper will be a detailed examination of one issue related to the First Amendment-freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government (ie protest). I chose the problem between freedom of the press and Privacy. I chose this theme because I can always see the scandals of many celebrities on social media and news. The exposure of personal privacy will undoubtedly have a great impact on them, even if what he does may be insignificant. The media likes to report on the personal lives of celebrities because they can bring a large number of readers. If they choose an obscure person and then expose his private life, it sounds shameless. We have the right to freedom of the press, so that things that need attention can be spread, such as when something unfair to people happens. Freedom of the press has a problem with personal privacy. The media likes to report star scandals, because a large number of people like to watch these, and they dont care about the impact on others. But we also need press freedom to prevent the government from abusing power. The central idea is, Does freedom of the press infringe on personal privacy?Does First Amendment freedom of press make people’s privacy exposure? in other countries where there is no press freedom, personal privacy may be exposed. Then in the United States, is anyone using the Press Freedom Act to expose the privacy of others. Probably just to find some information to prove that the violation of personal privacy may not be caused by press freedom alone, but may also be market demand. Of course, some may be related to this bill, but this bill is not the key to privacy. Personal request: USE source from the internet so I can look it up, don’t make essays too hard to read, use some simple sentences and vocabulary, just don’t make it hard to read. request： The essays should include lead-ins, quotes with quotation marks, parenthetical reference, etc. MLA Required Length: 1500 words (5 page minimum) + Works Cited At least 5 strong and credible sources must be used. Because of the unique conditions this semester, I am not requiring the use of a book or database. You may use all internet-based sources, but evaluate your sources for credibility. If relevant, one source may be in a language other than English. One may be a video source. If you use Wikipedia, it doesnt count as one of your 5 sources. Articles assigned in class may be used, but do not count as one of your 5 sources. All the sources you include in your essay must be included in your Works Cited. Your essay must have a thesis that takes a position on your topic. In other words, your essay must be making an argument, not simply discussing pros and cons. You can and should include pros and cons, but you must shape it to support your own point of view. The best way to find a thesis is to start with an overall question about your topic, and then clearly answer that question. Eg: Does the First Amendment protect a students right to choose how to wear their hair? The answer to that might be complicated, but its not: There are many opinions about whether hairstyles are protected by the First Amendment. That is not a strong-enough thesis. The answer might be: Although there are exceptions and limitations, a students hair style and length is covered by the First Amendment protection of free speech. Or: While hairstyles may be important to individuals, students do not have a legal right under the First Amendment to wear their hair in unusual or extreme styles. Or: Although the courts have not made a clear determination, it is obvious that the right to your own hairstyles should be considered a right of all people under the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Jones 1 Mary Jones Prof. Uyemura English 1A May 10, 2020 The First Amendment and Your Hair The words of the First Amendment to the US Constitution are brief and simple: “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.” At first glance, it does not seem that these words would have anything to do with hairstyles, or that the right to wear your hair in a particular style would have any legal protection under this amendment. However, over the past 60 years, several cases have arisen over the meaning of hair styles, and the right of students or employees to present themselves to the world in a hairstyle that they feel represents them and their beliefs or identity. While it may seem surprising, it is reasonable to say that the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion, in fact does protect the rights of individuals to wear their hair in whatever style they choose, in nearly all circumstances. The basis for saying that a hairstyle choice may be protected is that the US Supreme Court has clearly determined that “freedom of speech” includes not only spoken or written words, but also “symbolic speech.” An article in the ThoughtCo website explains several court cases in which freedom of speech is defined to include symbolic actions. The author points out a case called Stromberg v. California, in 1931, in which a law was passed making it illegal to display a red flag representing opposition to the government. After a woman in San Bernardino was arrested for flying a red flag, “The Court ruled that the first part of the code [using a red flag Jones 2 as “a sign, symbol, or emblem of opposition to organized government”] was unconstitutional because it violated Stromberg’s first amendment right to free speech” (Spitzer). Even though the flag was not literally “speech,” it was symbolic speech, and so it was protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore the right of high school students to express their political beliefs in a symbolic manner was demonstrated in a case called Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District in 1969. Spitzer explains that this case involved students’ decision to wear black armbands in school to show that they opposed the US war in Vietnam. In that case, a ruling was made that continues to be important today in cases related to students’ hairstyles. The court said that “Speech could only be restricted if it ‘materially and substantially’ interfered with school activities.” This concept of whether certain clothing styles, hairstyles, or other aspects of a student’s appearance “interfere with school activities” is frequently used to prohibit certain hairstyles. However, at that time, the court insisted that, “Armbands were a form of symbolic speech that did not meaningfully interfere with school activities” (Spitzer). Other cases related to symbolic speech include activities such as burning the American flag. Even though this action is shocking and disturbing to many people, the US Supreme Court has ruled that even without using words, a person is expressing an idea, and this symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech (Spitzer). So it is clear that “freedom of speech” involves more than actual words; it also includes symbols, symbolic actions, and symbolic clothing. The question remains of whether hairstyles fall under the same category as a black armband as a protest. Over the past 60 years, many schools and employers have created regulations regarding appearance, and hairstyles in particular have drawn a lot of attention. Starting with the Beatles’ hairstyle that became popular beginning in around 1963, boys began to grow their hair longer, Jones 3 and schools began to make regulations to prohibit that style. An article in The First Amendment Encyclopedia on “Hair Length and Style” discusses the case of a white boy named Chelsey Karr, a high school student in El Paso, Texas. A photograph of the boy shows him with blonde hair that covers his ears and reaches to the collar of his shirt in back and his eyebrows in front. His hair appears clean and neatly groomed, and looking at it today, it is hard to believe that anyone found his hairstyle shocking or disturbing. But his school district had a regulation that “did not allow a boys hair to hang over the ears or the top of the collar of a standard dress shirt or obstruct vision” (Strickland). The website Court Listener contains a complete record of this case, as it went from the school to a local court and on to an appeals court. His first legal attempt to assert his right to his own hairstyle was actually successful: “After a four-day trial, the district court . . . concluded that the denial of a free public education to Karr on the basis of this regulation violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Federal Constitution. The court [told the school] to enroll Chesley Karr and to refrain from enforcing the hair-length regulation” (“Chesley Karr, a Minor”). This decision was not specifically based on the First Amendment, but on other Constitutional rights. Surprisingly, at that time in history, the fact that girls were allowed to wear their hair long and boys were not did not seem to enter specifically into the decision. However, the school apparently was not satisfied with this outcome, and they petitioned to a higher court. In that case, the court noted that a hairstyle is constitutionally protected as a right, but they also stated that “school authorities might place restrictions upon this ‘right’ if those restrictions served ‘compelling’ state interests. The court held that the interest of the state ‘in maintaining an effective and efficient school system’ was a compelling state interest sufficient to justify the regulation” (“Chesley Karr, a Minor”). In other words, the court admitted Jones 4 that a person has a right to express themselves through their hair style, but that schools have a right to deny that freedom to students if they believe that the school cannot be effective with male students wearing their hair long. We might imagine that students being barred from school due to the length or style of their hair is something that ended in the 1970s, but recent cases show that the guidelines set down back in the 70s continue to be brought to bear in more recent years. According to a news report on a website called Today’s Cool News, a case in 2008 in Texas ended with a white student with long curly brown hair changing to a different school in order to avoid being forced to cut his hair (“Show Support”). A different issue came up in 2009 in Georgia when students were told that changing the color of their hair or having short hair with designs shaved into it were also against school rules. The article “Parents Upset over New Hair Policy” points out that parents believed that the policy was mainly being enforced on black students, and that the school board should focus on more important issues. One parent stated, My problem is theyre discussing and getting upset about hair dos or a color in the hair. . . . They should be more worried and concerned with if theyre depriving these kids of their education” (qtd. in Hutchings). As recently as 2019, according to a WILX television report, an 8-year-old black girl in Mississippi was told that she could not have her school picture taken because she had red extensions (artificial hair) as part of her hairstyle (Buchmann). A similar story from 2019 in Texas is reported by the local ABC news; a 4-year-old boy was told that he either had to cut his hair or wear a dress and say that he was a girl! His grandmother believes that the school’s rule, that hair shouldnt extend past the top of a t-shirt collar,” is both discriminatory and irrelevant. Randi Woodley, his grandmother, stated, We shouldnt even be talking about this at any age because hair has nothing to do with learning” (qtd. in “Superintendent Says”). Another black Jones 5 student in Texas in 2019 had a black Sharpie pen used to color the skin on his scalp in order to “hide” the design that had been shaved into his hair, according to a report by NBC news. The process was embarrassing to the 13-year-old student, as “three staffers were laughing as J.T.s fade haircut was colored in” (Fieldstadt). These recent cases seem to focus more on AfricanAmerican students, and many black advocates maintain that schools need to stop “policing” black hair as a means of controlling black students and trying to make them “look white.” They do have a good point, because it never happens that black students who straighten their hair into a more “white” style get in trouble, but various black styles, whether long or short, attract negative attention. All of this may seem a long way from freedom of speech or freedom of religion, but in fact, hair styles are often a part of religious expression, and as such should be protected by the First Amendment. The style known as “dreads” or “dreadlocks” or “locs” is one such style. It is most common in the black community, but people of other races and hair types sometimes wear their hair in dreads as well. An article on “The History of Dreads” explains that this style, in which hair is allowed to naturally form into long ropes of matted hair, is seen as far back as images from ancient Egypt, but that it took on a religious significance in India and Hinduism, as a symbol of lack of vanity or concern for physical appearance and was more recently popularized by Bob Marley as part of the Rastafarian religion. The author who calls himself Knotty Emx states that, “[Dreadlocks] can be an expression of deep religious or spiritual convictions, a manifestation of ethnic pride. They can make a political statement, or simply be a fashion preference” (Knotty). Furthermore, an article in the Michigan Journal of Law and Race notes that several other religions do include specific requirements regarding hair: “Several religions require their male members to forgo cutting their hair as a tenet of the religion. The Code of Jones 6 Jewish Law provides, [t]he Torah has forbidden to shave the corners of the beard with a razor only. Sunni and other Muslim sects prohibit male followers from shaving their faces. Likewise, a fundamental tenet of Rastafarianism prohibits a male from shaving his beard or cutting his hair after he has taken the Vow of the Nazarite” (Schneider). Given this understanding, we can see that a person’s right to freedom of religion could certainly be infringed if they were required to cut off their dreadlocked hair. But this is exactly what happened recently to a high school student. As NPR reports, in December 19th, 2018, a high school student with hair in dreadlocks was about to participate in a wrestling match when the referee told him that his hair did not meet the proper requirements, and that he had 90 seconds to either have it cut off, or forfeit the match. Millions of people saw a video of a white trainer hacking off Andrew Johnson’s hair so that he could compete. And even though he won the match, “the young man looks utterly miserable” (Wamsley). Whether his hair style was a religious matter to him or not, it was part of his identity as a black person. Happily, the case brought so much attention that the referee was removed from overseeing matches (Wamsley). In addition, people such as film director Ava DuVernay commented on the case, saying, “I dont just wear locs. They are a part of me. A gift to me. They mean something to me” (qtd in Wamsley). DuVernay’s comment is exactly the point: a person’s hair style “means something.” It is part of their right to free expression, and as such should be covered by First Amendment protection. The discrimination seen in numerous cases over the past 20 years is not new, and not just a few isolated incidents. Over 100 years ago, American Indian children were forced by government schools to cut off their long hair. Native-American Barbie Stensgar writes that “In many tribes, it is believed that a person’s long hair represents a strong cultural identity. This strong cultural identity promotes self-esteem, self-respect, a sense of belonging, and a healthy Jones 7 sense of pride” (Stensgar). But beginning in the late 1800s, Indian children were taken from their families and forced to attend boarding schools, and as part of an attempt to “Americanize” them (ie erase their identity as Native Americans), their long hair was cut. Stensgar’s grandfather told her how “his hair was cut in an effort to strip him of his culture and identity. Cutting his hair was their way of showing dominance over him through forced assimilation” (Stensgar). Similarly, Chinese immigrants to the US in the mid-1800s also had the custom of wearing their hair in a long braid, and laws were passed requiring Chinese who were arrested to cut off their long “queue.” An article in FoundSF reports that “Ho Ah Kow protested this treatment, [and] sued the Sheriff (Nunan) for damages. Circuit Court Judge Stephen J. Field ruled that the law violated the fourteenth amendment of the US Constitution guaranteeing equal protection” (Chionsini). It might seem unbelievable to most people today that a person’s hairstyle could be so meaningful, or that laws and regulations would be used to control people’s beliefs and identities, but we can see that minorities, and blacks in particular, continue to be harassed and punished for hairstyles that do not match those of the white majority. When young men began to grow their hair long in the 1960s and 70s, they were not simply following the Beatles’ style, they were making a political statement. They were rejecting the military hairstyles that were required of soldiers being sent to Vietnam. And the schools understood that message and tried their best to suppress it. When black people wear their hair in an Afro, or in dreads or various African styles, they are speaking to us loud and clear about who they are. When Native people and Chinese immigrants wore their hair long, they were asserting an identity, often tied to a religious belief that was not the same as the mainstream Anglo Protestant culture. The strong reaction to “unusual” hairstyles demonstrates that hair does say something. And the First Amendment is there to protect our right to say whatever we want, as Jones 8 long as it does not injure another person. No one is being injured by a black student with a cool design shaved into short hair or long dreads. The idea that schools have to police students’ hair in order to prevent “distraction” is just silly. People have all sorts of various appearances, and we manage to concentrate in school. Certainly, there are specific situations in which any person’s hair needs to be pulled back for health and safety. People working around heavy equipment or in food preparation, for example, may be required to cover their hair. Members of the military are often required to keep their hair short in order to prevent disease. But apart from those very limited and specific situations, our right to show our religious beliefs, political beliefs, or personal identity is exactly what the First Amendment means by freedom of speech and religion, and schools and employers should not be allowed to infringe on these rights for any but the most serious reasons. Jones 9 Works Cited Buchman, Nicole. “Eight-Year-Old Girl Denied School Picture Because of Her Hair.”7 Oct. 2019.WILX 10. www.wilx.com/content/news/Eight-year-old-girl-denied-school-picturebecause-of-her-hair-562449021.html “Chesley Karr, a Minor, Individually and John R. Karr, Individually and as Next Friend and Guardian Ad Litem on Behalf of The ... Purchase answer to see full attachment