How did the freedom of speech movement at berkely impact american culture?

Question

Also how does freedom of speech impact american culture

Answer 1

I wish YahooAnswers had been around when I was in high school!

Answer 2

Freedom of speech is rapidly becoming an illusion. I recently spoke for 15 minutes in front of 4 international Spanish T.V stations about immigration reform. I was one among several dozen people who got up to the podium, I spoke against the majority and the news that night gave much time to those on the other side, but I didn't come out, not even 1 second; although, you would think, I, being outnumbered would be news, especially since I had my windows broken out and my tires punctured right in front of city hall. There is also a movement to consider certain religious points of view as "hate speech", and priests are being jailed in Canada and France. Check into the "Fairness Doctrine" being discussed in congress lately. "Tolerance" is a crock.

Answer 3

Actually, it had a profound effect. Prior to the so-called 'free speech movement', the understanding of that Constitutional guarantee had to do with political speech, specifically UNPOPULAR political speech. At no time did the Founding Fathers or the federal judiciary prior to the 1960s understand 'freedom of speech' to mean freedom to publicly express language that the society as a whole found distasteful and obscene. True, books could be published that were 'obscene' in the view of the culture at large, but the establishments of the society were also free to 'ban' them from libraries and otherwise show their displeasure. After many scandals in Hollywood, the entertainment industry established an office of censorship which ruled on the acceptability of film offerings. In short, it was considered perfectly legal and legitimate for the culture to take action to ban or otherwise censor speech that was not political and nobody considered it as wrong and still LESS a violation of First Amendment rights.

In the 1960s, however, that all changed and people were told that the First Amendment protected ALL speech however inappropriate that speech might be for the forum in which it was expressed. What that did - aside from radically lowering the standards of society as a whole and opening the public airwaves and the entertainment industry to a plague of sex, obscenity, profanity and violence - was to remove the focus of the ACTUAL type of speech that in fact WAS 'guaranteed' by the First Amendment, that of political speech and/or speech directed at various societal and political concerns of the day. So, while it was quite acceptable to use the 'f' word, it became 'politically incorrect' to use the 'n' word unless, of course, one was black. In other words, the 'free speech movement' was extremely selective in nature. It made acceptable the type of speech that a civilized society did not openly display while attempting (and succeeding) in censoring unpopular political and social views - or at least those views that were 'unpopular' in the eyes of a certain ideological segment of the society.

As a direct consequence of what was first a matter of 'censorship by the disapproval' of the institutions of the culture - academia, entertainment, the 'media' etc. - soon began to find its way into actual law with the promulgation of statutes against 'hate speech'. Of course, 'hate speech' is entirely subjective and even opinions benignly expressed which ran counter to the politically correct mindset soon found themselves being included in that definition.

So, in effect, the 'free speech movement' has in fact led to a LACK of free speech, especially in those areas that actually were supposed to be protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. In exchange, we have a coarsening of the culture to the extent that young children and old ladies use language that 50 years ago would have made a sailor blush.

Answer 4

That is complicated - - - has anything ever been truly resolved by Freedom of Speech // // sure a lot of people screech & squawk but are their truly any results? The same people who have held power continue to hold power today. The Republicans and Democrats controled the Executive the Judicial and the Congress in the late 1960's and still do so. No 'radical' movement has pushed aside the staid conservative dogma that has been an American Stalwart for more than a Century...

That said what the Berkely Movement mostly did was to publicize the issues. Nothing gets attention on the evening (now 24 hour) news and newspapers like students protesting.
And to their credit the Berkley Movement boasted of some of the brighter more focused protesters who were able to get their version of issues out to the press before the press could distort those views. In other words the Berkeley Movement 'used' the press to press their agenda - - - nowadays the media is more savy as to how to squash dissent (see the Start of the Iraq War for How to Effectively End Protest),,,,,,

Freedom of Speech is one those things ballyhooed when people want to attach importance to an issue, but rarely is there ny actual result, as noted in first paragraph. Most is simply blathering which has become blogging. Blwing off steam while the Concervative Oligarchy steams ahead.

link and tail end of a cool essay by someone who knows these things - -
http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/berkeley.html
""The discussion revolved around the proposal of the senate's academic freedom committee endorsing the Free Speech Movement's basic positions on the disciplinary proceedings and the time, place, and content of speech and advocacy. In effect, it left the university authorities with only minimum traffic-cop powers to prevent physical disruption of the campus. A group of faculty moderates and conservatives led by Lewis Feuer of philosophy and Nathan Glazer of sociology opposed the committee’s proposal. Feuer offered an amendment that committed the university to nonintervention in matters of speech and advocacy only when they were "directed to no immediate act of force and violence." He observed to his colleagues that the failure of the German universities in the early 1930s to insist that students be disciplined for off-campus attacks on Jews, liberals, and socialists had enabled Nazi students to destroy German freedom and prepared the way for the rise of Hitler. The liberals counterattacked. Owen Chamberlain, a physics Nobel Prize winner, deplored the paternalism implicit in the Feuer amendment. Others endorsed the right to mount boycotts, stage sit-ins, and establish picket lines to protest injustices in the outside community without university interference. Several noted that the students were watching them, a view that struck Feuer's party as a threat of mob violence if the faculty did not accept the original proposals.

The Feuer amendment was defeated 737 to 284; the vote on the original proposals carried 824 to 115. As the faculty filed out of the building the masses of student spectators greeted them with cheers and loud applause.

Within hours the Free Speech Movement called off the strike and issued a statement headed "Happiness Is an Academic Senate Meeting." Apparently Jack Weinberg's pithy slogan warning against trusting anyone over thirty had been proven wrong. The next day the movement won another victory. At the annual student government elections, SLATE, a part of the Free Speech coalition, swept into student government offices. Every SLATE candidate won. With double the usual voting turnout, the student government's existing conservative leadership was totally repudiated.

The eagerly awaited Regents' meeting on the 18th did not turn out well for the Free Speech supporters. The Regents refused to accept the academic senate's assumption of ultimate disciplinary authority over the students. The group did not pass on the substantive proposals of the senate's December 3 resolutions and promised only to appoint a committee from among its members to consult with students, faculty, and others to make recommendations at some later date. Pending completion of this process the existing rules would remain in force. But then fortunes shifted. On January 2 the Regents fired Chancellor Strong and as acting chancellor in his place appointed Martin Meyerson, dean of hide College of Environmental Design. Meyerson had been a supporter of the Free Speech Movement, while Strong had been responsible for the Sproul bust. The Regents were clearly offering the student activities peace. Meyerson’s first act was to accede almost totally to the Movement's fundamental demands. Henceforth students would be allowed to set up tables on the Bancroft strip and at other designated places on campus. Student organizations using these tables could receive donations, distribute literature, recruit members, and sell such items as buttons, pins, and bumper stickers. ""

Pax------------------------

Answer 5

General Research Guides for Students:

Easy to use links that will help with all your research needs, try typing a keyword or two into the search engine and see what happens.

http://findarticles.com/

http://vos.ucsb.edu/index.asp

http://www.yagosearch.com/

http://www.aresearchguide.com/

http://www.dogpile.com/

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/8866/index.html

http://www.studentresearcher.com/search/

http://www.chacha.com/

http://www.reference.com/