Freedom of Speech: What Does it Mean?
Your opinion is important to us, please comment on this article.
by Dan Kellum
In this great country of ours we have a freedom many others do not. That freedom is one of free speech. With that comes the difficult decision of its limits or lack of limits. The First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
According to the following people it seems that the issue is not as simple as one may think. For some free speech means just that, the ability to say whatever you want to anyone you want where ever you want, and others place limits on free speech, exceptions such as “fighting words” and or racial insults, and the list is growing. The idea behind the restrictions lay in the belief that we must protect those who would be affected by racist speech, hate speech and to protect the innocence of our young children. There seems to be objections worth mentioning within both sides of this debate. There are many different view points below, ranging from eliminating racist speech in public forums and also in certain areas like collage campus, class rooms, and dorms, to an unregulated marketplace where anything goes. These following opinions will help in defining what Freedom of Speech means to some and help us to understand the difficult task of defining exactly what Free Speech means to us. Somewhere within these opinions must be a middle groung we can all stand on.
In an article titled “On Racist Speech” by Charles R. Lawrence III ,a professor of law at Georgetown University, wrote, “ there are very strong reasons for protecting even racist speech”(Lawrence III 512). As Jonathan Yardley, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post Book World, wrote in “Speech in America; Free ,But Not Cheap”, “Free speech insists on living up to its name. When the price of free speech suddenly is exacted, they invariably are surprised and resentful” (Yardly 527).
How can we protect people from ideas while retaining their freedom of speech? This is one of the biggest questions facing us. When we start telling people what to say, we are forcing rules on them that must be voted on by the people. Not everyone believes that we have the right to say anything, anytime, anyplace they want.
“The First Amendment doesn’t mean that any thing goes, any time”, wrote Jeff Durstewitz in an letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal on June 29, 1998 titled “Cultural Vandals” Hide Behind Free Speech. He also goes on to say “The Constitution should not be a ready licence to rob our kids of their precious childhood, not to mention submerging their minds and souls in an endless, demoralizing, and deepening flood dreck” (Durstewitz 530).
Sometimes it is difficult to see to price we must pay for our freedoms, and our children are the ones who will pay the bill. Does this mean that it is not worth the price? Many people will agree that we should protect our children, but they don’t understand what the end results will be. Will we be limiting our children’s freedom when they grow up, to oppose those ideas they do not agree with?
Music is one of those areas that the issue of free speech is challenged repeatedly. In an article published in the July 20,1992 of Time magazine titled “Ice-T; The Issue Is Creative Freedom” by Barbara Ehrenreich, an honorary chair of Democratic Socialist of America and is the author of numerous books, including “Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War”(1997), she brought up the question, “why in our free market of ideas why it shouldn’t be any less free for a black man” (Ehrenreich 521). This was in response to the boycott on not only the song ‘Cop Killer” by Ice-T but also Time Warner products while other bands such as the Rolling Stones and the Clash advocate violence to police.
Nat Hentoff , the author of “The First Freedom” (1998) and a staff writer for the Village Voice, wrote in his article that appeared in the May 1989 issue of The Progressive, titled “Free Speech on Campus”, “I don’t believe students need to be protected from bad ideas. I think they can determine for themselves what ideas are bad.” He also goes on to ask “who decides what speech can be heard or read by everyone” ( Hentoff 517)? He questioned how students who are “protected” from bad ideas are going to learn to identify and cope with them (Hentoff 517).
But on the other hand, in regards to an ad that ran in several college papers claiming that the Holocaust never occurred, David M. Oshinsky, a professor of history at Rutgers University and Michael Curtis, also at Rutgers and a professor of political science, wrote in an article published in The New York Times on December 11,1991 titled “Freedom of Speech and Holocaust Revisionism”, brought up the question, what good purpose, if any, is served by printing ads that are intentionally hurtful and obviously false? These ads should be rejected, ….or the truth itself will be diminished. (Oshinsky and Curtis 525)
As Charles R. Lawrence III points out, speech that contains “fighting words” falls into the exception to the First Amendment (Lawrence III 513) . He goes onto say “The Supreme Court has held that words which “by their very utterance inflict or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are also not protected by the First Amendment”(Lawrence III 513). He believes the purpose of the First Amendment is to “foster the greatest amount of speech”, and that “racial insults deserve that purpose”( Lawrence III 513).
Another avenue of free speech is that of the Internet. Stewart Dalzell , a judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, describes the Internet as “ Far more speech-enhancing than print, the village green, or the mails.”, “Free Speech on the Internet: Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act”. He also goes on to says “The Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental protection.” For this reason he believes that “the CDA is unconstitutional on its face”
Stewart Dalzell continues with parental roles in the monitoring of information their children are exposed to. They can gain access to the Internet through online services that provide parental controls. There are also blocking software on the market. He places the responsibility back to the parents not the responsibility of Government. He points out “if we dislike free speech when it expresses unpleasant opinion – then the thing to do is to get rid of it.”
The answers to where the limits or boundaries of free speech are, is not simple. Many people feel free speech is just that, the freedom to say anything, anytime, where as others oppose totally free speech in order to protect the innocent. The more people discuss this issue, the more complex it seems to get. More questions are raised and more answers are offered creating more to disagree with. Some can see problems free speech could create while others only see the limits to creative thought. We must continue to debate this issue and to come to a understanding that we all have the right to disagree, all though there must be a middle ground we can all stand on together.
Works Cited
Dalzell, Stewart. Free Speech on the Internet: Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act. Elements of Argument: A Text and Reader. Annette T. Rottenberg. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000.526
Durstewewitz, Jeff. “Cultural Vandals” Hide Behind Free Speech :Elements of Argument: A Text and Reader. Annette T. Rottenberg. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2000.530
Ehrenreich, Barbara. Ice-T: The Issue Is Creative Freedom: Elements of Argument: A Text and Reader. Annette T. Rottenberg. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000. 521
Nentoff, Nat. Free Speech on the Campus. Elements of Argument: A Text and Reader. Annette T. Rottenberg. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000. 516.
Lawrence III, Charles R. On Racist Speech: A Text and Reader. Annette T. Rottenberg.6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000. 512
Oshinsky, David M. and Curtis Michael. Freedom of Speech and Holocaust Revisionism Yardley, Jonathan. Speech in America: Free, but Not Cheap: A Text and Reader. Annette T. Rottenberg. 6th ed Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2000. 527
2 comments so far
Leave a reply