The
historical development of free speech within England and the United States is
important to comprehend in order to understand the current debate over what is
constituted as free speech. As described in our textbook, political governments
often controlled and determined the definition of free speech, which for the
most part was quite limited. However, eventually more progressive ideas began
to take root in governments and what was protected under free speech began to
expand. Despite the evolution of free speech, there is still debate over what
should or should not be protected under the First Amendment.
If
one were to look back during the colonial period in the United States, they
would witness direct control over speech by federal and local governments.
Within the United States, blasphemy and criticism of the local government were
not tolerated. For example, in 1635, Baptist Roger Williams was banished by the
Massachusetts legislature for “dangerous opinions” against the state
government. In the case of Williams, he was arguing for the separation of
church and state. At this time, colonial governments were able to directly
control what was considered free speech. The government’s involvement in
deciding what should be considered has also been debated due to many not
wanting to give that sort of power to our government.
A
current example of speech that is debated and whether or not the government
should regulate it, is white nationalism/supremacy. Recently, there were
demonstrations in Charlottesville, Virginia where white nationalist protestors
voiced their ideas of white supremacy. What followed suit was many things, but
also an enormous amount of articles discussing what should or should not be covered
under the First Amendment and whether or not the U.S. government has the
authority to make that decision. I found an opinion article on the New York
Times website, titled, Free-Speech Rights
and Hate Groups. The article discusses the very issue stated previously.
After the events in Charlottesville, many called for the government to no
longer protect this “hate” speech under the First Amendment. Looking back at
the Supreme Court Case of Davis v.
Massachusetts (1897), we can observe the government controlling free speech
within public spaces. In the case, William F. Davis preached a sermon in the
City of Boston without a permit. Davis argued his First Amendment rights were
violated, however the Supreme Court ruled against him, stating, “that the
government was entrusted with the supervision of public places and had complete
control over their use, including their use for speech-making” (Tedford and
Herbeck 38). If we examine both this Supreme Court case and relate it to the
events in Charlottesville, one could argue against government regulation of
what can be said in public spaces. In the New York Times article, the author argues
against those wanting government restriction on free speech, and mentions how,
“allowing governmental officials to regulate speech based on their assessment
of who is promoting equality would be disastrous”. If we were to allow the U.S.
government the ability to control what is protected under free speech, who
knows what could happen.
In
the past, the government used its regulation of free speech to silence the
voices of minorities and women. Maybe, more freedom under the first amendment
is better than allowing the government to decide what should or shouldn’t be
protected. Our textbook discusses the work of John Stuart Mill’s book On Liberty (1859) and his argument of
how free speech is defined. According to Mill, the free exchange of ideas and
speech should only be limited when it posed a direct threat to another person.
Many would argue that the speech at the protests in Charlottesville posed a
direct threat to non-whites. So the question remains, who should decide what is
or is not protected under the First Amendment? The government? The people?
You had some really great speaking points! I wanted to answer the question you posed at the end of your post first. Who should be the ones determining what type of speech is or isn't protected under the First Amendment? In some major ways I think that both government and people have a role in the deciding that. Governments make rules, and the people petition their government to revisit certain decisions before they are implemented. You used the Charlottesville, Virginia as an example; and hence I will too! There will always be two opposing sides, in the case of Charlottesville, we have the white supremacists on hand, and the rest of the population that does not believe what is being done is right. They creates an atmosphere for change, or fro criticism. It challenges the government, and they either act accordingly, or nothing is done about it. Freedom of speech is thrown out when the incitement of violence exists, or even the intent of enacting violence. Therefore it takes the actions of the people, to get the government to set rules
ReplyDeleteIt is insane to think that at some point in time, any opinions that would have been seen as "detrimental" to the government could be 100% censored and controlled by the government. I think that you raise a multitude of great points in this post. When you ask who should be the ones determining what is protected under the first amendment, I have a few thoughts. We as the citizens of the United States should have a substantial amount of control over what can and cannot be said. With that being said, without any form of government regulating on the limits, we would have complete anarchy. In doesn't necessarily always work this way, but we should set guidelines for what is okay, and the government should enforce upon these guidelines. I believe that the government still has too much control over our first amendment rights. In light of Charlottesville, we have the discretion to look at situations like these in many different ways, but this is the way that I see it. There are two sides in this war. Two sides that have been awfully unwilling to listen to each others reasoning. I wouldn't necessarily blame the government for suppressing the speech of the people in a lot of these situations. I blame us, as the people. We need to come together and form a unified opposition to the government. Until that happens, we will continue on this cycle.
ReplyDeleteYou made a lot of really great points regarding what should and should not be protected under the First Amendment and who has the right to protect that. It is scary to think that our government could be the ones deciding what would be considered speech that is considered okay and what isn't. It really is all matter of opinion, unless someone is being directly threatened-- in the case of the Charlottesville protests. Free Speech is such a scared and important part of our constitution and it needs to be protected no matter what. Although hate speech is prevalent in our world, it happens so much that it is extremely hard and time consuming to regulate all of the little things. When it becomes a larger issue, that is when the people should be able to step in and say that this is not okay. We have come very far from our colonial roots and the rights of the people, especially historically marginalized groups like women and minorities.
ReplyDeleteIf you look back in history, especially during the Jim Crow era-- free speech was not giving to AfricanAmerican people. They were treated like dirt and less than citizens. Women have also always had to suffer voicing their opinions because they aren't taken seriously or that they aren't intelligent enough to have an opinion. When you look at today with people believing we are in a post-feminism, post-racism, post-gay era, they think we have finally achieved equality and equal voices for all citizens of the United States. This just isn't right, because the only people who really are getting their voices heard are the powerful white males in the country, and they are the ones regulating the laws and deciding what is considered hate speech and what isn't. With Trump in office, he is in a powerful position and there is a lot of white supremacy tendencies in his administration. Free Speech cannot be regulated with certain people in positions of power, because it will become corrupt.