9 Jan 2018 Free Speech

How Far Should “Free Speech” Go?

The 1st amendment to the US Constitution is one of the most powerful statements ever written on how a government will rule its citizens and a citizen’s rights.  It 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.”

I am going focus on “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…”

 There are in fact laws that have limits on freedom of speech and they mainly deal with public safety.  The one most people know is the prohibition of yelling “Fire” in a crowded movie theater or other indoor place when there was in fact no fire.  Or in today’s world yelling that a bomb is going to go off.  This is to prevent the stampede effect that happens in crowded places with limited exit points.

Congress and the courts have given wide latitude to free speech. It becomes very controversial when limits are imposed.  There is a challenge today on free speech. It goes under the heading of “hate speech.”  It is usually individuals or groups who are labeled far right-wing or White nationalists who have hate speech views that people want to stop.  Traditionally the American Civil Liberties Union has gone to great lengths to defend hate speech.  The ACLU is considered a liberal organization but they have recognized the serious consequences if speech is to be prevented.   However, in the past year the ACLU decided to not fully defend hate speech organizations.

College campuses were bastion of free speech, but this is not the case today. A lot of Universities prevent speakers who have views that differ from a portion of the student body. The students protesting a particular speaker do not see the irony in their actions. It is perfectly acceptable to protest in a peaceful and respectful way, but outright prevent someone from speaking because you disagree with their views is not acceptable.

In no way do I agree with the speech or positions of white nationalist. But if I truly believe in the first amendment then someone who wants to say things I consider very wrong should still have the right to do it. What is critical is to have the vast majority of the people of the country speak out against hate speech.

I have heard the argument that Adolf Hitler could have been stopped early in his rise to power if his hate speech was not given a public forum. This maybe true, but I believe a significant portion of the German population agreed with what he said and thus he was not just of fringe element.

 We must be very careful when it comes to limiting free speech.  However, if you see hate speech then you must offer on opposing view.  You must also take other actions such as supporting elected officials who will not implement the laws and policies that hate groups expose.  You can still defend their right to free speech, but you can also prevent it from going beyond just speech.

I will strongly support someone’s right to free speech when that speech is directed broadly. However, I don’t believe someone has to right to intimidate or harass an individual.  This is especially true when dealing with children in junior high or high school when it comes to bullying another person.  Verbal attacks on another person at this age is not acceptable. We still have to be careful in how we access language that may be viewed as bullying when in fact it is just kids playing around. The important thing is how it is viewed from the person who is on the receiving end. There are many cases when just verbal bullying has led the very negative outcomes.  That is why this type of free-speech must be carefully considered.

How far should an adult be able to direct free speech to another adult?  Should sending an email be protected?  If the sender used no language that would be considered threatening should they still be able to send it?  There comes a point where free speech transitions to harassment.  If someone sends an email once a day to another person who does not want it, I believe that would not cross the line into harassment.  However, if it became 10 emails a day then I would consider that crossing the line.  Why is the number 10 unacceptable and not 5 or 20?  I can’t say for sure.   It doesn’t have to be just emails, it could be any form of communication.  My point is there is a point where someone’s actions go beyond protected free speech.

 Even though Congress is not supposed to pass any law abridging the right to free speech, there are many situations that society has to determine if some regulation is required. It must be carefully considered and not be some rush to judgment in the heat of the moment. As I said free speech is the cornerstone of democracy. It must be strongly protected but it must also be assessed where harm overrides an individual’s right.