what amendment is freedom of speech

what amendment is freedom of speech

The Importance of the First Amendment in Protecting Freedom of Speech

1. Introduction

The essay will begin by stating what is meant by the ‘First Amendment’, how it affects daily life, and an understanding of what freedom of speech is. This section will then discuss the history of the First Amendment, including its ratification immediately after the American Revolution. It will discuss the First Amendment in its historical context and its original purpose. The essay will then look at the present situation of the First Amendment and the current interpretation made by the judiciary who are enforcing the laws. The essay will then discuss any changes that have taken place in the interpretation of the laws and freedom of speech. Finally, the essay will look into the future of the First Amendment, what issues it may face, and what can be done to ensure that it continues to protect the freedom of speech.

2. The First Amendment: A Cornerstone of Democracy

The classic view of the American community is one of a debating society, where the truth is found by allowing all sides to give their opinion on any given subject. It is generally seen that speech is a requisite for government to be a democracy. In any authoritarian form of government, it is seen that a plurality of voices questioning and debating the government is a threat to that government maintaining power. For a democracy to be successful and to have legitimacy, it must allow the competition of ideas on how to solve the complex problems that face society in order to find the best solution to these problems. This view of democracy is what is held by Schumpeterians and deliberative theorists. Current American democracy is by no means based purely on speech, but speech is absolutely essential to its legitimacy and it would be hard to imagine a functioning American democracy if speech was heavily restricted. A limitation of speech can be easily seen as contradictory to the democratic model. Given that the population does not possess a complete knowledge of what its best interests are, it is difficult to see how people can advance their interests if they are not allowed to discuss and debate them. In U.S v. Alcoa, Supreme Court Justice Douglas wrote, “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat the United States.” This view is rather extreme, but it is evidence of how the importance of speech to democracy is sometimes taken for granted.

3. The Scope of Freedom of Speech

Hate speech in public and on the internet is a serious problem and there have indeed been cases of harassment towards black and Jewish individuals in the United States, which have ended in violence. But it is still seen as an essential protection for the first amendment as hate speech can be vague in definition and the limitation can get out of hand. This contrast of views on hate speech can lead to conflict particularly in today’s modern global society. For example, in 2000, former NATO Supreme Commander and US presidential candidate Wesley Clark and another NATO officer were acquitted by a European court, despite being accused of having violated human rights. This came after they had ordered the bombing of a Serbian TV station, a move which international legal experts widely agreed as wrong due to their claims that the station had been producing Nazi-fascist propaganda against people in the Balkans. The judges said that the disproportionate force used was the reason for acquittal and during the period of the trial, Clark and the other officer had diplomatic immunity. This action, which would have been a war crime charge in another possible scenario, was a consequence of indefinite global meanings of freedom and hate.

Hate speech is now indeed protected under the first amendment unless it is a genuine threat towards people from minorities. In the case of RAV v. City of St Paul, it was established that a group of white teenagers could not be convicted under a local ordinance of burning a cross in the garden of a black family. This act was not seen as a genuine threat and would have been protected by the white teenagers’ first amendment rights. This can be tough for other countries to understand, who have a different view on race relations. In Canada, for example, hate speech is restricted and the government can set conditions under what is classified to be hate. Published hate speech is a criminal offense in Canada and within the criminal code, it states “Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of…” and this indeed can lead to imprisonment in serious cases.

The first amendment says, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Most Americans accept the literal meaning of these words to be absolute. If taken literally, everyone would have the right to say anything and it would be withheld by the government. This view of the first amendment can indeed stretch its scope from symbolic speech through to unrestricted hate speech and protection from employer retaliation.

4. Challenges to Freedom of Speech

Overall, there are many factors posing challenges to freedom of speech today, and it remains to be seen how law and policy will address these issues and strike a balance between civil liberties and competing interests. This is an important time for those who value their First Amendment rights to remain vigilant and to voice their opinions on the state of free speech in America.

Another significant challenge to freedom of speech that has emerged in recent years is the rise of new communication technologies. These technologies have vastly increased the ease and speed of communication and have transformed the way people exchange information. But while they have been a great boon to free speech in some respects, the internet and various new media platforms have created many new questions about the scope of First Amendment protection and what amounts to censorship in the digital age. In the fast-paced and constantly evolving arena of digital communication, it is sometimes difficult for the law to keep up with new issues as they emerge. In the absence of clear legal standards, private entities often engage in censorship and self-censorship of content in order to avoid controversy or legal action. This is in addition to any legitimate content regulation enforced by government. Self-censorship has been a noted phenomenon in the blogosphere and it was recently revealed that social media companies have been subcontracting foreign nationals to censor content that may violate U.S. anti-terrorism laws. This raises free speech concerns and questions as to whose law applies to what content and what the limits of acceptable discourse should be in an increasingly globalized world.

Several modern factors pose a threat to freedom of speech in the United States. The terror attacks on September 11, 2001 and the subsequent “War on Terrorism” have led to a widespread belief that it is necessary to limit civil rights in order to secure safety. Measures taken by the government, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, have been criticized for threatening the basic rights of citizens. Title II of the Act, for example, authorizes surveillance on those suspected of terrorism-related crimes, including monitoring the internet and phone communications. This is a threat to the privacy rights of those being monitored and may hinder their freedom of expression, as one may be less likely to voice their opinions if they know the government is watching. The nebulous distinction between “us” and “the enemy” in the War on Terrorism has created a chilling effect upon Muslim and Arab communities in the U.S. who wish to exercise their free speech rights by criticizing government policy. They fear that exercising their rights will lead to backlash from a xenophobic public and from government investigations, despite the fact that their speech is fully protected by the First Amendment. And with the U.S. engaged in conflicts abroad, there has been official pressure and popular support to suppress anti-war sentiment. This was seen in the backlash against the Dixie Chicks for their criticism of President Bush in 2003.

In America, challenges to freedom of speech have been common in the past and we are still facing them today. The challenges can come from the government or from non-government entities. When the challenges come from the government, the First Amendment offers less protection and the rules governing the legality of restrictions based on the content of the speech are quite complicated. When the challenge to free speech and association comes from a non-government entity, the First Amendment is not implicated, unless the entity has close relations to the government. So, some of the key rulings of the Supreme Court that have defined the scope of protected speech under the First Amendment are only relevant when the government is the speaker or the entity bringing the lawsuit. But for the purposes of this discussion, I will address the potential threats to free speech by both government and non-government entities.

5. Conclusion: Safeguarding the Vitality of Free Expression

The defence of free expression is recognised as a keystone of American democracy, tracing back to the inception of the Republic. Historically, the First Amendment of the US Constitution has been lauded as almost an automatic passport to freedom, for both the individual and the press. Yet there is debate as to the First Amendment’s “preferred position”. To many, speech requires this high degree of protection in order to survive. Others believe that the First Amendment has been intended as a constraint on governmental power and not as a sword enabling individuals to fend off speech restraints in the private sector. It is held that the Amendment’s protections are necessary evils; tattered remnants to be used as a last resort when all else has failed. And only a few would argue that the First Amendment has become too protective, providing undisciplined and sometimes irresponsible citizens and press with a safeguard behind which to retreat from socially desirable obligations. But ultimately, a democratic society that embraces open debate can only exist when it allows its citizens to express themselves freely, whether it be in thought, word, or deed. History has taught us that selective suppression cannot be tolerated and that allowing a few exceptions will soon lead to a general erosion damaging all expression. This being the case, we must accept the First Amendment in full as a guardian for speech and only then may free expression remain vital in the US.