The Bill of Rights of 1964


was a landmark tool in eradicating racialand class discrimination in the United States. The idealization ofthe bill was triggered by the president’s speech on 11 June 1963.In his disquisition, Kennedy called for a legislation that would giveAmericans the right to access public facilities and receive servicesregardless of their backgrounds. He also emphasized on the right tovote. He made his oration after the Birmingham Campaign in whichstudents were injured after police released dogs on them. The Billreflected some parts of legislation passed in 1875.

The Civil Rights proposal of 1964 barred any form of discriminationduring voter registration exercises. It also criminalized bias basedon race, color, religion, and origin in all public amenities. Thelocal and state authorities were prohibited from setting unequalstandards for the citizens to access pools, parks, and otherstate-controlled facilities.

The Bill also barred employers from denying workers chances and theirdues on the grounds of their color, religious affiliation, ornativity. It also protected people of diverse backgrounds ordenominations from bigotry when associating with others. Article IVof the legislation called for the desegregation of public schools.The section allowed the Attorney General to file suits againstinstitutions that would not honor the decree.

Non-discrimination became a policy of the United States across allthe sectors of government. To ensure the adoption of the proposal bystate agencies, the Bill spelled out possible denial of funding forthe institutions that would be found culpable of perpetuatingintolerance and casteism.

Supreme Court’s Guidelines on the Freedom of Speech

The judicial system has been critical in guiding, protecting, andextending the right of expression through speech. In the FirstAmendment on the right of speech, the court balances the liberty ofarticulation. It defines the limits of which an orator cannot exceedwithout contravening the liberties enjoyed by others in the Americansociety. The First Amendment holds that the freedom of speech is notabsolute. It can be curbed if exercising it presents an imminentdanger. An individual is struck off the right to deliver a speechthat defames the government or retards its efforts.

In 1957, the high court ruled that obscenity presents no redeemablesocial importance, and it could not be perpetrated in a publicspeech. However, in a 1969consequent ruling, the institution heldthat individuals could possess pornographic materials at home,provided they adhered to the provisions of privacy. The Supreme Courtmandates the states to regulate speeches in particular events thathave the possibility of disrupting the social order.

It is also acceptable for people to express their thoughts throughother methods apart from orating. Such methods include, wearingarmbands, burning effigies, and carrying placards. However, suchactivities must be conducted in an environment that does not exposethe public to danger. For example, burning materials cannot beallowed in fire-restricted areas.

The legal institution also provides for the regulation of fightingwords. It expounds them as insults directed to a person, and that cantrigger violent reactions or play any other function apart from thepresentation of ideas. The law prohibits the use of such phrases inexpression.

Finally, individuals making a speech have the right not to have theirfreedom of speech contravened by other parties. Diversionary faultsmay include, stalking speakers, intimidation, and in somecircumstances, heckling. Besides, the court identifies a freemonologue as a possible cause of dispute, unrest, provocation, anddissatisfaction. In such circumstances, law enforcers have a duty ofprotecting people delivering such messages.