Skip to main content

Freedom of Speech and Democracy

I thought this last chapter of the book Freedom of Speech in the United States was a good wrap-up to an understanding what the Freedom of Speech is and means for America. Of the three rationales for free speech, the political reason seemed to be the most dominant to me. Tedford and Herbeck explain that free speech is necessary for a democratic self-government to work by identifying three key points: “(1) facilitating free and open deiscussion of political issues within government, (2) promoting citizens’ participation in the political process, and (3) supporting the oversight function of a free press” (429).  Basically, these points related to democracy allow parliament to debate, average citizens to receive and give information and opinions, and protection of those who expose abuse of power. Democracy seems to be a core reason for the Freedom of Speech from Tedford and Herbeck’s perspective and from that of Faust Rossi, Cornell professor of law. In an article on the Cornell Chronicle Journal Rossi says, “Freedom of Speech is said to be the most cherished of our constitutional rights. It is the essence of our democracy” (Gold). I also agree that Freedom of Speech is essential for our democracy, but I do think there can be negative effects of this we should consider.

What I mean by this is that there are times when speech, at least in my opinion should not be protected under the Freedom of Speech, but is under our law. The Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps is an example of when I would have liked to see the court rule a violation of free speech. Basically, “members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed with highly offensive signs outside a military funeral, and the father of Mathew Snyder, a soldier killed in Iraq, filed a suit arguing that the demonstrators intentionally inflicted emotional harm and intruded on a private event” (Gold). The court sided with the church in this case, which made sense because they were peacefully protesting and did not bring violence, but their signs were so vulgar that I would have ruled in favor of Snyder. Images from Google show that one of the picketed signs read “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”. What the meaning of this is or why they would be protesting such a thing is beyond me, but this case makes me wonder when offensive language becomes a violation of the law. This is the part of the Freedom of Speech and democracy I think is hard to stomach.

Sources:

Gold, Lauren. “Freedom of Expression is the ‘Essense of Our Democracy,’ According to Faust Rossi.” Cornell Chronicle, Cornell University, 16 Mar. 2011.

Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed. N.p.: STRATA, 2017. Print.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more