Free Speech Should Be Protected Under The First Amendment

In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.

When describing a court case in which hate speech was involved, the writer establishes the “motivation for - the thinking that results in - criminal behavior” of an act. The use of dashes allows for the writer to quickly point out that words with multiple connotations can prove problematic in the field of law because a word may invoke different ideas in different groups. The author displays that a solution that solidifies exactly what separates hate speech from the rest of the crimes needs to be found to protect the 1st Amendment and citizens’ safety. In relation to the previous example, the author presents that the criminal was protected because the behavior “was directed at a particular victim, not because of Mitchell’s thoughts.” By clarifying that the criminal behavior was due to how the act was carried out, the author acknowledges that there are inherent flaws with the law today.

In the case of Elonis v. United States, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Elonis’s speech did not count as a “true threat” since a subjective intent to threaten was needed. An objective standard would not be sufficient in this case because we want to separate actual criminal acts from heat of the moment mistakes. However, the decision of the Supreme Court does not include intended victims of the threats and they need to be taken into account as well. The government’s duty to protect the right to first amendment’s freedom of speech and its duty to keep people safe can collide from time to time. Therefore, we may have to take all threats seriously and not just the ones the speaker intends, in order to protect everyone from potential violence and prevent preemptive strikes out of fear.

So the need for more drastic, shock and awe type actions from people desiring to be heard on any particular matter has been brought to the forefront. This is where the Bill of Rights has drastically come into play. At this point the Supreme Court has to protect the freedoms without stripping Americans of their rights entirely but it also has to protect Americans from those who wish to do harm to others under the protection of freedom of speech or expression. Not only does the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech but also freedom of expression which is as equally controversial. By examining the First Amendment and the protections and exclusions it has provided over the years through three highly controversial cases, it will allow the reader some insight into the difficulties surrounding the protection of free speech. The cases that are to be examined are Snyder v. Phelps, Morse v. Frederick and Texas v. Johnson. All of these cases present a different freedom of speech or expression issue that was brought to the Supreme Court and therefore, set a standard for future rulings regarding that particular issue.

Over time the Supreme Court has decided that certain aspects of freedom of speech are more important than others. For example, if someone used their First Amendment rights to lie about things they knew were false, threatened to commit a crime, insult another person, or used overly explicit content, the courts have moral grounds to prosecute those persons. It makes sense that if someone’s freedom of speech lessened another person’s right to freedom of religion or freedom of opinion by instilling fear, that is an unfair use of the First Amendment. These parameters, although not specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights are very important to protect everyone’s right to feel safe believing the things that they do.

Freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment. I support it because It is my individual right to say what I want and not go to jail like other countries, the Bill of rights has this so myself and all Americans can have the freedom to say what they feel like. For the common good people went into the war for the country even though they didn't have the rights to speak after the war and did not have the right to speak after the war “ I went. I did what was expected of me as an American. I did not to run away from my duty. I fought for what I believed in freedom. Was i wrong Memories of Vietnam : War in the First Person” Michael Murphy

The United States of America is a symbolic icon for liberty and justice and an advocate for people’s rights. One of the most known things around the world is how the United States protects the freedom of speech more than any other nation. Two hundred years the Founding Father’s First Amendment that preserved the freedom of press, petition, speech, religion, and assembly has been under a shadow of uncertainty. There is questions in the political world of how far will the First Amendment protect the freedom of speech? In this era there has been a transition in society, one where there are more pressures to be inclusive in the United States to help with the betterment of all. With that, a trend was introduce into similar cases that reached the Supreme Court, one that questioned the constitutionality of limiting matters like hate, or offensive speech. The free speech clause should protect offensive speech, despite the negative connotations that are from it, because there is this concept that if one thing is prohibited what is the end to these limitations that are without basis. The case Matal v. Tam represents this idea and supports an unabridged First Amendment, except when there is imminent harm to citizens.

The First Amendment does not only give the individuals the rights to free speech, but also gives the companies the protection to advertise their products. However, there are regulations in advertisements, such as that the information on the advertisements cannot be misguiding nor false. If companies are restricted on the way they use to advertise, individuals may not be as free as they think because they are regulated on what they want to say. For instance, tobacco companies are highly regulated in advertisements. The government required tobacco companies to inform the consumers that tobacco can cause bad health problems. This can support the argument that we are not as we as we believe we are because we need to follow the directions of the government. The government limited the people that tobacco companies can target. However, tobacco companies are indirectly targeting the youth because the style of their advertisements are most attractive to teenagers. This is an issue that is cause by the First Amendment because sellers have the rights of free speech. They may be limited to the ways they advertise, but they always find ways to sell their products to a wider group.

Like most democratic nations in the world, the United States has had its own fair share of issues with hate speech. There has been a lot of controversy over whether hate speech should be regulated. In analyzing the concept of free speech, one cannot ignore that it does not occur in a vacuum. There have been all types of debasements ranging from ethnic, religious, racial and gendered stereotyping. Freedom of speech inherently includes all other fundamental human rights. Hence, as acknowledged through natural rights, other rights and personhood should adamantly be included within this scope of this protection. Hate speech is a limit on free speech, as it not only puts the victim under deliberate psychological and physical harm, but also

In Brink’s discussion of, Millian Principles, Freedom of Expression, and Hate Speech, he distinguishes between low value and high value speech. The former is speech that plays no essential role in the exposition of ideas and is of such slight social value as a step to the truth that any benefit is outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. Examples of low value speech include threats, fighting words, incitement of illegal activity, libel, and obscenity. In contrast, high value speech is speech that contributes to public discourse. Moreover, it possesses content-based restrictions that are subject to strict scrutiny, laws that are necessary to meet a state interest.

As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim’s race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal’s freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one’s thoughts, or to express one’s self, they also say that this right is guaranteed to all Americans. But people and organizations who are against these hate groups ask themselves if the first amendment include and protect all form of expression, even those that ugly or hurtful like the burning crosses. The Supreme Court Justices have decided that some kinds of speech are not protected by the Constitution,

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” (Jacobus 93). Just like the Freedom of Religion there are limitations placed on the Freedom of Speech so that other people’s rights aren’t compromised. For example, people are not allowed to present true threats, or “fighting words” to another person. This restriction was put into play in the court case of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. The Court ruled that “fighting words, by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace and may be punished consistent with the First Amendment.” (Ruane 3-4). In this case if someone was to use “fighting words” which is their perceived freedom of speech, it would not only violate the law, it could violate someone’s freedom of pursue life, liberty, and happiness. With this, we can see that freedom is not always as it

Throughout history, the United States Constitution has been put to the test over the issue of free speech. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Even though free speech is one of the core American values proudly embedded in each citizen, some poopAmericans find themselves torn between whether or not to limit the freedom of speech on behalf of hate speech. Most law-abiding citizens disagree with hate speech, but must realize even speech that promotes hate, racism, and even crime