Communication Law in Brandenburg Versus Ohio - Essay Example

 The Brandenburg versus Ohio test was based on three distinct elements of intent, imminence, and likelihood, and his intent standards were more speech protective as it was in line with the first amendment which prohibits making any law respecting an establishment of any religion; impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press and interfering with the right to peaceably assemble (Tanenhaus & Gale, 2008). Sarah Palin’s implications of media manufacturing “blood libel” to categorize her and other conservatives was more distracting to allude that Jews feed on the Christian blood, from the imminent lawless action test view had a distinct precedential lineage. This is to imply if one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or interest to resist the law, one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation and does not stand for persecution on the incitement or other freedom of speech violations. This is to mean from the Tucson shooting, the Gifford who seemed to be on Palin’s targeted list through the use of crosshairs and an electoral map to denote targeted congressional seats could be the consequential symbolism of shootings that later happened. From the test, the implications and/or the symbolism of the “crosshairs of gun sight to the Gifford’s’ districts” did not explicitly overrule the bad tendency test but it was more symbolic than actual. From the history of the clear and present danger test, the legitimate role of the symbolic speech controlled government greater latitude in controlling freedom of speech regardless of the governmental interests advanced in suppressing some particular instance of speech. This shows that Palin’s implications passed the intent standards and from Brandenburg’s test, the constitution guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy except where such advocacy is directed to incite or produce lawless action.

The chilling effect can be described as the discouragement of legitimate exercise or inhibition of natural and legal rights through a threat of legal sanction by the court, passing of the law, and/or threat of a lawsuit that causes people to hesitate to exercise the legitimate right (Baker, 2011).  The United States’ definition/usage can be viewed as the suppression of the constitutional right to free speech which can be necessitated from the government’s point of view especially if the speech/discussion has adverse effects on national security or state integration. For instance, in economies where there are mixed races, the government may limit the use of certain words that imply some sort of racial discrimination against a given race for purposes of national integration. On the other hand, the government might be necessitated to control the media's freedom of speech and publications in case of a security threat or breach so as avoid public panic or to avoid misinformation in the process of investigation. Professionally or from the business point of view, the majority of businesses are governed by “business information” that the business fraternity is supposed to keep secret. For instance, multinational companies like Coca-cola restrict their employees from sharing their resume compositions to protect the company from product imitation and competition. In addition, the majority of businesses with hierarchical management structures have the stipulated “amount” and “nature” of information that every employee within the hierarchy can share with the public or the business clients. For example, the information that can be disseminated by the manager to the public or the shareholders will be different from the information that can be disseminated by a junior clerk of the same company. This control or the chilling effect at these organizations is meant to control and protect the sensitivity of information within the business fraternity which would be compromised in case any employees can say anything about the business. Culturally cultures can limit individuals in society from using certain words or exclamations that can affect integration and coexistence. For instance, some words might have a definition in the dictionary but the actual use in the society may be offensive. On the other hand, some cultures incorporate slang, usually characterized by age brackets to convey a given message or impression within the age groups without interfering with other members of the same culture. This will allow the free exchange of information among peers which with the absence of the “slang” factor would cause cultural misunderstanding. The personally chilling effect can be practiced from the medical reference where someone feels uncomfortable sharing his medical history with the public rather than the medical expert. In addition, federal employees are not supposed to utter some words in public that can disintegrate them or signs of favor towards a race or a community.