Speechless: The Current State of the First Amendment
The ability for any person, regardless of who they are, to speak their mind is an international value treasured by the modern era. Even nations infamous for their censorship, such as China, lists freedom of speech within their Constitution. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN lists that every person is entitled to the freedom of opinion and expression. Within the United State’s own legislation, the Bill of Rights lists freedom of speech as a right which Congress is forbidden to restrict.
Over the years, necessary exceptions have been made to this right. In the famous Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of speech could be restricted if it represented a “clear and present danger” to society. The most common example of this is the illegality of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Although the majority of speech is protected under the First Amendment, it has been difficult for the U.S. Supreme Court to pinpoint exactly the criteria for protected speech.
Recently, however, there has been more controversy in the First Amendment’s protection on what some call “hate speech.” Hate speech is speech which targets specific people or groups on the basis of certain attributes such as race and gender. In the midst of rising student activism, several prominent college protests have taken place across the country in opposition to controversial, mainly conservative, speakers. In February 2017, UC Berkeley invited controversial right-wing speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at their campus. Along with opposition from students, more than 100 faculty members signed a letter calling to cancel the event, citing that Yiannopoulos was responsible for “creating conditions for concrete harm and actually harming students through defamatory and harassing actions”.
Many of the reasonings behind the protests are justifiable and often commendable. What students are generally fighting for is the protection of less recognized communities and exposing oppression. Additionally, their acts of protests are a form of “counter speech ” which are also protected under the First Amendment. However tactless their means of protests are, they are still protected as free speech.
In 2017, examples of violence and rioting during protests have gained national attention. Violence is not protected as free expression, and is also an inefficient form of persuasion. Oftentimes, violent protests discredit the protests’ cause, ostracize people who are unwilling to align themselves with violence, and bring sympathy for the opposing side. For example, if a speaker is going to speak about how seals oppress penguins but is violently stopped by angry seals before they speak, then the speaker will appear to be the morally righteous one, and can gain support and sympathy for their cause. Although an outlandish scenario, this happens frequently in a politicized climate where different sides of the political spectrum view each other with great suspicion.
However, the detail which lacks the most attention is that the freedom of speech still includes the protection of ideas which may contradict our most basic beliefs and morality. In 1977, the Supreme Court controversially protected the rights of Neo-Nazis in Skokie, Illinois who marched in an area populated with many Holocaust survivors. Though the actions of these Neo-Nazis are uncomfortable and sickening to think about, the Supreme Court’s decision to adhere to the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment is respectable and important. Even movements now seen as positive social change, such as Women’s Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement, began as uncomfortable and radical ideas. However, once people’s thoughts and ideas were challenged by these new ideas and opinions, they enabled individuals to learn, and as a society: grow.
Free speech isn’t an excuse to say anything just because it is protected by law, but rather an idea that a well-informed public will contribute and participate in general discussion in order to better understand one another and improve as a whole. The principles and goals of free speech are the true victims of our evolving society; they are the fundamental basis of a democratic society. The paradoxical nature of the freedom of speech is that its goal is to simultaneously promote compromise while provoking response. This precarious balance is what is needed in order to maintain a society full of well-educated citizens and keep the hunger for knowledge alive.
Especially in today’s society, the growth of quick moving ideas through technology has only further allowed people to envelop themselves into echo chambers of their own opinions and abandon understanding. It serves as a possible outlet for intelligent conversation and limitless sources. However, consumers are quickly locked into a cycle of constant revalidation of the same ideas. As an online business, algorithms dedicated to increasing engagement with the user will present links they know viewers will click. For a business model, this is a smart way to make money, but from a cultural standpoint, we become unaware of ideas different than our own. A culture of intellectual laziness has taken a hold of the general public because as humans, we like to engage with the familiar. With technology giving us the option to choose where we want to look, we will often go with what is easy. A severe lack of strong opposing viewpoints keeps us happy but silences a whole world of different thinkers in which our education could expand.
A common mantra for protecting free speech is “the answer to speech is more speech”, and while this has its merits in genuine debate and the interchange of ideas to avoid violence, it leaves out the most important part of our ability to communicate: the willingness to listen. We can fill the world with the sounds of our words, but if no one is listening, what meaning does it have? Furthermore, the focus on two “sides” of an issue, scrambling to a “Who’s wrong? Who’s right?” debate as we try to split complex, multifaceted issues into left and right, only contribute to intellectual decay. By using the principles of free speech and open ears, we will be able to resolve differences and bridge the growing divides between peoples.