In an effort to balance free speech rights with the need to create safe learning environments for a diverse group of students, some public universities have established free speech zones on their campuses. Within the zones students are permitted to protest, post signs, and engage freely in the expression of their opinions. Outside the zones, however, students are expected to avoid speech that could be seen as offensive or obscene. Many have criticized these zones for limiting free speech and have called into question the constitutionality of designated zones for free speech. Develop an argument either for or against the use of free speech zones on public college campuses.

Use at least one piece of evidence from one of the following foundational documents:

The First Amendment

The Declaration of Independence

In your essay, you must:

✓ Respond to the prompt with a defensible claim or thesis that establishes a line of reasoning.

✓ Support your claim with at least TWO pieces of specific and relevant evidence.

One piece of evidence must come from one of the foundational documents listed above.

A second piece of evidence can come from any other foundational document not used as your first piece of evidence, or it may be from your knowledge of course concepts.

✓ Use reasoning to explain why your evidence supports your claim/thesis.

Designated free-speech zones are also becoming commonplace at certain public events, particularly those attended by high-ranking government officials, because of security concerns.

At the 2000 Democratic National Convention held at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, police set up a “secured zone,” which could be entered only by those with an actual convention ticket, and a “demonstration zone,” which was the only place protesters were allowed to demonstrate.

Several groups of protesters filed for a preliminary injunction in federal court, which it granted. The court held that the secured zone comprised sidewalks and streets, which constituted a traditional public forum. The court further held that the planned regulation was not narrowly tailored and did not provide adequate alternative means of communication,

because at all times it kept demonstrators too far away from their intended audience — convention attendees. The court significantly noted that “banning speech is an unacceptable means of planning for potential misconduct.”Free speech zones are areas set aside in public places for the purpose of political protesting. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner – but not content – of expression.

The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, be narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words.

The purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian" and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries. Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue.

i do agree with robert moses’ statements about wiping out cities that are an “impediment to new growth”. in order to have a positive community, the city must continue to grow either in terms of size or economics. therefore wiping out cities that restrict growth benefits the overall society and all the people living in it. similar to a social contract, i believe that if a person was to live in a community they must sacrifice some of their rights, in this case property, for the overall good of the people. as long as these people living in the cities are reimbursed and the purpose of wiping out the cities is to serve the public, there is no problem with robert moses’ core idea.

chemicals, posion.

are some basics