Free Speech Research Paper
Free Speech: Finding the Balance
The concept of free speech has been an enduring and drama-filled issue in the United States. While Americans enjoy a much higher level of freedom than residents of oppressive and dictatorial countries in the world, the Constitution remains in some areas ambiguous and open to interpretation and manipulation. It has been – and will continue to be – difficult to find the balance between allowing generous expressive freedom and protecting citizens from the harmful effects of hate speech. This balance is essential to the well-being of society; when either side is missing, people suffer and the integrity of the American people and Constitution suddenly finds itself at risk.
First, before delving into the …show more content…
The problem is not in the words themselves, but rather in their consequences. Words alone are empty placeholders, but the meaning society gives to them and the context of their use determines their acceptability and effect. There is nothing offensive about the word “fire,” but if a man stands up in a crowded auditorium and screams that word, a dangerous riot might result. In the case of hate speech, the harm often escalates beyond words. Richard Delgado, a proponent of curbing hate speech, cites an instance of speech that went too far. “In Mississippi, a lesbian couple trying to establish a rural retreat was hounded by threatening messages and phone calls, and a dead chicken with an obscene note was attached to their mailbox” (273). Clearly an instance of unnecessary aggression, malice, and unacceptable behavior, this incident reveals the critical need for balance between allowing free speech and protecting citizens from hate …show more content…
Neither is an absolute. Neither must be given priority over the other. Both are essential for the preservation of humanity. If free speech is given free rein, then the right to be protected from incitement to hatred it lost. If the right to be protected from incitement to hatred is given first priority, then the right to freedom of expression will be unduly threatened. (296)
Often in history, the hateful party has used its right to free speech to its advantage, stomping on the same rights of its victim. This is seen in Frederick Douglass’s printed speech, “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston,” in which he argues for freedom for unpopular views in December of 1860, only a few months before the outbreak of the Civil War. He recalls how a group of abolitionists assembled to discuss how to end slavery. A mob quickly attacked and broke up the rally by order of the mayor. In Boston of all places, a supposed beacon of hope in the North, slavery (a blatant denial of human rights) was defended in a city where freedom of speech was thought to be intrinsic. The anti-abolitionists had only oppression in mind; this kind of “speech” did nothing but suppress and harm. In this case, the abolitionist’s safety should have taken precedence
The concept of free speech has been an enduring and drama-filled issue in the United States. While Americans enjoy a much higher level of freedom than residents of oppressive and dictatorial countries in the world, the Constitution remains in some areas ambiguous and open to interpretation and manipulation. It has been – and will continue to be – difficult to find the balance between allowing generous expressive freedom and protecting citizens from the harmful effects of hate speech. This balance is essential to the well-being of society; when either side is missing, people suffer and the integrity of the American people and Constitution suddenly finds itself at risk.
First, before delving into the …show more content…
The problem is not in the words themselves, but rather in their consequences. Words alone are empty placeholders, but the meaning society gives to them and the context of their use determines their acceptability and effect. There is nothing offensive about the word “fire,” but if a man stands up in a crowded auditorium and screams that word, a dangerous riot might result. In the case of hate speech, the harm often escalates beyond words. Richard Delgado, a proponent of curbing hate speech, cites an instance of speech that went too far. “In Mississippi, a lesbian couple trying to establish a rural retreat was hounded by threatening messages and phone calls, and a dead chicken with an obscene note was attached to their mailbox” (273). Clearly an instance of unnecessary aggression, malice, and unacceptable behavior, this incident reveals the critical need for balance between allowing free speech and protecting citizens from hate …show more content…
Neither is an absolute. Neither must be given priority over the other. Both are essential for the preservation of humanity. If free speech is given free rein, then the right to be protected from incitement to hatred it lost. If the right to be protected from incitement to hatred is given first priority, then the right to freedom of expression will be unduly threatened. (296)
Often in history, the hateful party has used its right to free speech to its advantage, stomping on the same rights of its victim. This is seen in Frederick Douglass’s printed speech, “A Plea for Free Speech in Boston,” in which he argues for freedom for unpopular views in December of 1860, only a few months before the outbreak of the Civil War. He recalls how a group of abolitionists assembled to discuss how to end slavery. A mob quickly attacked and broke up the rally by order of the mayor. In Boston of all places, a supposed beacon of hope in the North, slavery (a blatant denial of human rights) was defended in a city where freedom of speech was thought to be intrinsic. The anti-abolitionists had only oppression in mind; this kind of “speech” did nothing but suppress and harm. In this case, the abolitionist’s safety should have taken precedence