This first article sis about many different ways the government attempts to restrict the limits of our first amendment rights. This includes the fighting words doctrine, of which may restrict someone‘s right to express anger towards another using such means as curse words or raising the middle finger. Although having acts and laws that prevent someone from expressing themselves in a way that may cause a disruption of the peace appears to make our country a safer and better place, it restricts our freedoms, I think it is wrong to restrict our first amendment rights unless the expression causes harm to others (for example, a man who blows up a building because his god told him to). To flip a man the bird or call him names does not cause any harm, but rather tells the man that someone is angry with him. No government or law office should be allowed to make laws that restrict our first amendment freedoms or ignore those freedoms because someone angered them while expressing them. Officials who do so should have a higher sentence than those who expressed themselves.
The second article is written by a man trying to defend a Muslim he believes was wrongly convicted of being a terrorist. This Muslim was sentenced to 17 years in prison because of expressing hatred towards the US government, of which was rightfully justified by his religion. Technically speaking, this Muslim man should have been protected under the first amendment. He did not specifically target anyone in his hate speech about the United States, but rather very broadly announced it on the internet. In addition, his expression of religion should also have been protected under the first amendment, regardless of his religion being anti-American. It is unfortunate this man was wrongly prosecuted, but I hope the Supreme Court will recognize that convicting someone solely off of where they are from and what they believe in is legally wrong, as well as morally.
