Pros And Cons Of Freedom Of Speech Equality
Freedom of Speech vs. Equality.
-Arguments-
Rav vs. City of St. Paul is not a case concerned with the privacy of the black family involved. The members of the CCClan shouldn’t have been in their back yard and therefore they are guilty of trespassing. However, there is something much more important about this case, something much heavier than violation of privacy. This case is about freedom of speech and whether regulating speech would ensure equality, or only lead towards greater discrimination.
If we look back at the history of the US, it is obvious that African Americans have not always had the rights they have today; that they haven’t always been equal compared to other races in the US. However, their main tool for acquiring social equality throughout the years has been speech in the many different forms it can take. Freedom of speech has been theirs, and every other minority’s main means for standing up against the majority and claiming their rights, which has eventually led to the establishment of a democratic American society in which everyone has equal rights and freedoms. Free speech inspires social changes and must therefore not be restricted under any circumstances. [1] Restricting speech wouldn’t mean protecting minorities; it would only …show more content…
mean denying them the basic right which they use to fight for equality.
On the other hand, restricting speech to protect minorities only sends them a message that they are incapable of protecting themselves.
By doing this, the state treats them differently compared to the majority, which is essentially violation of the idea of equality. To avoid this, the state must allow every kind of speech to be heard and believe that its citizens are capable of deciding for themselves what to believe and be convinced by and what to reject as unacceptable. Ideas against racism must prevail through their power and not the paternalistic approach by the state. The state must believe that its citizens will make the right judgment in this and any other case, and not force them to do so by
regulations.
Furthermore, regulating speech can be seen as abuse of power of the authorities as well. Restricting free speech by the Government endangers the democratic process through which that Government has been elected in the first place. Moreover, it is essential in the maintenance of strong democracy that speech is not being regulated on the basis of its topic, content, form of expression or the opinion of the speaker. Content neutrality must be enforced for democracy to be protected.
On the other hand, it could be argued that what the CCC did in this case is offending to black people, i.e. their speech is racist in its nature. It could be argued that the “words” they used are “fighting words” and therefore brought pain to the black family. However, racist speech is still speech and fighting words are still words, both protected by the First Amendment. As David Feldman says at one point, “Even people whose speech falls into the category of fighting words or aggressive action are entitled to protection under the First Amendment,” because “it’s an attitude to democracy, which considers people as responsible and moral human beings.” [2?]
Furthermore, racist speech is a political speech and therefore must be heard to preserve the idea of democracy, which allows every kind of speech to be heard and leaves it to the public to decide whether to be influenced by it or not. Balancing the right to freedom of speech case after case would open the door towards less protection of speech and consequently endanger the democratic principles in the country.
[1] R. Delgado and D.H. Yun, “Pressure Valves and Blooded Chickens: An Analysis of Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulations.”
[2] D. Feldman
-Arguments-
Rav vs. City of St. Paul is not a case concerned with the privacy of the black family involved. The members of the CCClan shouldn’t have been in their back yard and therefore they are guilty of trespassing. However, there is something much more important about this case, something much heavier than violation of privacy. This case is about freedom of speech and whether regulating speech would ensure equality, or only lead towards greater discrimination.
If we look back at the history of the US, it is obvious that African Americans have not always had the rights they have today; that they haven’t always been equal compared to other races in the US. However, their main tool for acquiring social equality throughout the years has been speech in the many different forms it can take. Freedom of speech has been theirs, and every other minority’s main means for standing up against the majority and claiming their rights, which has eventually led to the establishment of a democratic American society in which everyone has equal rights and freedoms. Free speech inspires social changes and must therefore not be restricted under any circumstances. [1] Restricting speech wouldn’t mean protecting minorities; it would only …show more content…
mean denying them the basic right which they use to fight for equality.
On the other hand, restricting speech to protect minorities only sends them a message that they are incapable of protecting themselves.
By doing this, the state treats them differently compared to the majority, which is essentially violation of the idea of equality. To avoid this, the state must allow every kind of speech to be heard and believe that its citizens are capable of deciding for themselves what to believe and be convinced by and what to reject as unacceptable. Ideas against racism must prevail through their power and not the paternalistic approach by the state. The state must believe that its citizens will make the right judgment in this and any other case, and not force them to do so by
regulations.
Furthermore, regulating speech can be seen as abuse of power of the authorities as well. Restricting free speech by the Government endangers the democratic process through which that Government has been elected in the first place. Moreover, it is essential in the maintenance of strong democracy that speech is not being regulated on the basis of its topic, content, form of expression or the opinion of the speaker. Content neutrality must be enforced for democracy to be protected.
On the other hand, it could be argued that what the CCC did in this case is offending to black people, i.e. their speech is racist in its nature. It could be argued that the “words” they used are “fighting words” and therefore brought pain to the black family. However, racist speech is still speech and fighting words are still words, both protected by the First Amendment. As David Feldman says at one point, “Even people whose speech falls into the category of fighting words or aggressive action are entitled to protection under the First Amendment,” because “it’s an attitude to democracy, which considers people as responsible and moral human beings.” [2?]
Furthermore, racist speech is a political speech and therefore must be heard to preserve the idea of democracy, which allows every kind of speech to be heard and leaves it to the public to decide whether to be influenced by it or not. Balancing the right to freedom of speech case after case would open the door towards less protection of speech and consequently endanger the democratic principles in the country.
[1] R. Delgado and D.H. Yun, “Pressure Valves and Blooded Chickens: An Analysis of Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulations.”
[2] D. Feldman