Hillary Carrillo
Ms. Carlson
English 4—4
9 November 2017
Regulating Freedom of Speech: Leaving Hate Behind
In modern-day United States, freedom of speech is the dividing factor of society due to differing opinions as well the agonizing feeling of being politically correct. After the 2017 election of Donald Trump, the number of hate-fueled attacks significantly increased (Chen 1). Reported in these attacks were a majority of conservative groups such as alternative right, who favor the idea of white nationalism. While freedom of speech is a part of the first amendment in the constitution of the United States, some tend to take that national right and use it for the wrong ways, such as turning it into hate speech. People are free to speak their minds, but that does not mean they should speak their minds freely. The ability of this right should be exercised with discretion. Citizens of the United States have a moral obligation to express their opinions both responsibly and with respect, but often this right is abused whereby the intent is to taunt or cause offense, inflicting violent outcomes.
Explaining Free Speech
In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech from government restrictions. Encasing the idea of what it means to be an American, no right is more fundamental to this idea. The right to “speak your mind”—even if it means strongly bashing and criticizing political leaders or their policies—is more ingrained and protected in the United States than in other countries. A person’s ability to go out and dehumanize another being solely based on their skin color, religion, race or sexuality is lawful, as long as the incident does not turn violent or imminent threats are made. It is imperative to understand that although one is able to say what they want, a person’s free speech is restricted to where they are, what they say and how it is said. In an interview conducted via email October 11, 2017 with Lexington High School’s American Government teacher, Mr. Wayman,
—You cannot use false or malicious words about someone else or something else whether it be written (Libel) or spoken (Slander). You cannot say or do anything obscene, which according to the Supreme Court Case, Miller vs. California, 1973, any speech or expression must pass a three-pronged test. First, it cannot be considered obscene to the average person. Second, the work cannot describe offensive sexual conduct and third is if the work lacks any serious value of any variety such as artwork, science, etc. If the expression does not pass through all three requirements it is considered obscene and is not protected by the first amendment. Lastly, any words that incite others to commit crime are not protected by the first amendment. (2)
Present Restrictions
To begin, United States does have current restrictions but it is not as strict as in other countries such as Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands (Block 4). Freedom of speech does not include the right to incite actions that would harm others, such as shouting “bomb” on an airplane or “fire” in a theater. This rule was established in 1919, under the Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States. Making or distributing obscene materials was prohibited in 1957 with the court case of Roth v. United States. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement took place and speech was used to gain nationwide attention; however, the first amendment did not protect black men and women involved in this progression. Many were arrested and subject to cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, considering many protests were going around, government decided to implement a time, place and manner restriction. This restriction means that government has the ability to control where a protest is taking place, how it will be done and the time it happens. If any rules are broken or if it takes a violent turn, officials have the ability to step in and make any arrests if needed. Moreover, another restriction is the students’ ability to print articles in a school newspaper over their objections of administration or their surroundings. While the United States Constitution is applied within schools, rights are slightly reduced due to the students being minors and adults serving as employees. As a result, it is argued that school is an environment where it is important to provide a safe, orderly school surrounding conducive only to learning because a public learning institution requires a peaceful environment to thrive (Free Speech and Public Schools). When in a school district, most rights are taken away from employees and students–such as freedom of speech. In a survey done at Lexington High School, students were equally split on their opinion. Out of 48 students who responded to the survey, 24 students agreed that freedom of speech should be restricted on school campuses while the other half agreed that it should not. Weighing in on his opinion after being asked whether speech should be regulated on school campuses, Wayman stated,
In a public area expression is free and is only limited to what it states in the constitution, however in high school, for example, your speech is limited to what the school allows, this is included in many other private areas such as being an employee of jobs, or on private property. Remember the speech cannot be stopped before being expressed but those private businesses can punish some speech if not allowed on their property or in their company where it wouldn’t be in the public sector. (7)
In the survey conducted, various students pointed out how regulating freedom of speech on school campuses is a positive rather than a negative. To quote Jose Villalpando, a Lexington High School student, “If it were not regulated in schools, multiple instances of students harassing others and talking back to teachers would possibly spike up. There are already too many people who abuse their freedom of speech to make such derogatory remarks about others (…).” Cesar Amador Quiñonez, another high school student, wrote, “Everyone has an opinion, even if it hurts other people. However, people take things way to [too] far at times.” Branching off on his answer, not only are comments taken too far at school, it is seen all throughout social media. Regular residents living in the United States are being attacked for simply being themselves. Among these victims are gay, lesbian, Latino or non-native speakers.
Regulating Speech
Why should freedom of speech be restricted? Not only does it inflict violent outcomes, as seen in the Charlotte rally in North Carolina, which left one girl dead, it sets back society. Conformity toward racism is almost a new normal seen in United States. While people are standing up to the bullies and speaking their minds, it does not stop others from joining in and fueling the hate. It is because of this that restricting hate speech should be acted on. Arguments for regulating speech exist and the most common one is that it is hurtful and can lead to undesirable consequences. If not raised right, children will believe they can take advantage of this right and bully other students. Bullies tend to say what they want and are often unaware of the damages they cause. This can lead to trauma in the victim of bullying. Restricting hate speech can lead to a betterment of society with more acceptance. People, especially minorities, would not feel out of place for being themselves and it would allow them to live peacefully. Residents of the United States would walk around not feeling worried that someone will lose their patience with them and yell out derogatory terms. Canada has implemented restrictions on hate speech. The Canadian Human Rights Act does not allow discrimination on different grounds.