free speech amendment

free speech amendment

The Importance of Protecting Free Speech

1. Introduction

Freedom of speech is not absolute. In fact, protecting the principle of free speech has resulted in some of the most significant legal battles in the history of American jurisprudence. However, nothing in the history of free speech matches the intensity and sophistication through which modern colleges and universities attempt to regulate the free expression of ideas. This essay will first describe the law as it currently stands with respect to free speech on the nation’s public and private campuses. Then it will examine why the issue of free speech on campus may be one of the most crucial issues facing the future of our democracy. Finally, it will propose a set of principles to guide colleges and universities in dealing with issues of free expression, and offer recommendations on implementation of these principles. This essay is prepared in the conviction that the time is ripe to take stock of free speech on campus with a view toward helping colleges and universities fulfill their educational mission, while protecting our heritage of free expression.

2. Historical Background

An especially noteworthy historical event affected free speech in its ruling in Schenck v. United States 1919. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and 15-year prison sentence for Charles T. Schenck. He had been the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America and secretary of the committee which produced the anti-draft resolutions. The court ruled that his resistance to the draft led to the 1965 Congress undoing the convictions by repealing the laws. The seven arrested men were tried and found guilty in a trial regarded as one of the most unfair in American legal history. Due to its significance in legal thinking, Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 is a major decision in the area of free speech and the limitations it faces today. The court established that speech can only be prohibited when it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declared that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, the press, and the right for petition and assembly. The Amendment reflected the American ideal that an open society is the foundation of a true democracy. However, it was tested almost immediately with the passage of the Sedition Act of 1798. In essence, the act prohibited speech that was critical of the government. Its opponents found influence in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions that were legislations adopted to protest the Acts and direct the legislatures of the several United States to nullify the unconstitutional laws.

The era’s reform was shaped by forward thinkers. The idea of absolute free speech appeared in John Milton’s “Areopagitica”. Later, the concept of free speech formed the basis of the new government in the United States. Thomas Paine, by many, was the first real free speech martyr – a man who dared to speak out on behalf of the common man and demand the most radical changes. His life was in danger because of his stand against the death penalty and his call for the most radical of all changes – the creation of a written constitution. With tyranny everywhere, Paine found refuge in America. The ideal of free speech was vocal on the northern side in the Civil War vs. the south’s sedition and conspiracy acts that demanded an end to public discussion of the war not lining up with the Union’s beliefs.

3. Current Challenges and Controversies

A different challenge to free speech is manifested ominously in times of conflict or war. Censorship and propaganda, two of the threats to free speech Orwell warned of in his novel 1984, have historically been most rampant when the nation’s general populace would be otherwise reluctant to the particular military action. In the US, for instance, the Sedition Act of 1798 was passed only a few years after the passage of the First Amendment, making it illegal to criticize the government of the United States. During the First World War, the act was invoked in a massive propaganda campaign designed to garner citizen support for the war effort. This effort was so successful that it silenced much dissident and opposition deep into the 20th century. In more recent times, the Vietnam War brought about a new level of free speech controversy with the Pentagon Papers case and the element of journalists bringing uncensored images of war into American living rooms. These images, particularly the now infamous photo of the My Lai massacre, were said to be a great factor in turning public opinion against the war. The current situation in Iraq has also been marked by controversy surrounding journalists, albeit less lethal this time, with dozens of reporters of both Western and Arab origin killed and numerous claims of US military oppression of media coverage.

There are almost too many current controversies to list, but several of the most pressing challenges to free speech have taken the form of recent legislation and campus speech codes. The internet has thrown a new spin on the issue by acting as a medium and forum for speech and thereby provoking questions about what restrictions, if any, should be placed on its content. Recent legislation in the United Kingdom and around Europe characterized by the Race and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 has sought to safeguard against offensive speech targeting racial and religious groups. Israel, Canada, and Australia, among many others, have also placed limitations on “hate speech”. As with any legislation contradicting freedom of expression, these laws have generated much controversy in their respective countries, and public debate remains as to their enforcement. The United Nations has also taken steps to combat “hate speech” by proposing an international treaty to help countries deal with ways to limit advocacy of racial and religious hatred.

4. Benefits of Free Speech

Free speech not only provides a platform for change but it also reinforces the values of democracy by allowing the public to participate in decision making. If the perspective of the majority is the only perspective, then that too is a form of tyranny. Allowing people to voice their opinions, concerns and aspirations is the foundation of a system that can be truly aware of its own strengths and limitations, thus free speech acts as a mirror to genuine self-expression. This platform is crucial to the function of democracy, as it not only represents public participation but also encourages it. The ability of citizens to voice their concerns will bring flaws in the current system to public attention and creates a demand for their resolution. A well-known example from the ancient Italian and Roman societies was the public veto. In a similar practice, Roman aristocrats as well as the modern consuls, were able to block detrimental decisions. This is seen in politics as well as life, as an educated citizen is able to use their own judgment to veto something they perceive to be harmful. Free speech has also played a vital role in the affectation of the law. Throughout history, great legal reformers have been liberally endowed with free speech. In all probability, the abolition of abominable laws has come about through their public denouncement. Free speech is often a catalyst for the common man to attain justice.

Free speech is essential for a free society. There is no greater tool for changing the world than true free speech. The ability to challenge the status quo provides an opportunity to change the world, the ability to express new ideas, and put out into the public sphere beliefs that are against the current trends allows for society to change for the better. Throughout history, the protection of free speech has sparked positive social change, from ending racial discrimination to winning the right to vote. These changes had to begin somewhere, and more often than not they began with an idea that was deemed radical or dangerous. In the 6th century BC, the Athenian general and political leader, Pericles used free speech to steer the Athenians into fighting to oppose the power of the Persians. This famous ancient principle of free speech, once the hallmark of Athenian democracy, has emerged as one of the fundamental concepts of modern Western thought. Abandoning the concept of freedom of speech may have compromised the safety of the city from external threats, and ultimately deprive Athens of its freedom through the internal threat of oligarchy.

5. Conclusion

We can thus conclude that it is our duty as citizens of the world to protect free speech and the freedom of expression. We live in a social environment that is in a state of constant flux, with the occurrence of various changes that affect humanity. It is worth remembering that throughout these changes, each change made to the present social environment will affect the lives of those in future social environments. It is for this reason that Man should be granted the freedom and ability to express his thoughts and feelings, for these are the very things that make us human. After all, free speech allows an individual to effectively exercise their personal autonomy. This point is touched upon by L.W. Stern who states “Imposition is no longer the method of repression; the man is simply bypassed by the policy maker, and it becomes manifest to him—and in this consists a crucial aspect of the discovery of himself as an individual—it becomes manifest to him by the simple fact that he cannot undertake to oppose the policy, to argue against it.” (Stern, 53) A repressive government or force will implement policies that affect the general populace. These policies will affect individuals in various ways, yet without free speech an individual will have no effective means to communicate their thoughts and feelings on the policy implemented.