Two of the guarantees outlined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution are the freedom of speech and the freedom of press. Over the course of U.S. history, the Supreme Court has provided constitutional protection to a variety of aspects of speech and the press. Today's post will talk about certain aspects protected by the Supreme Court as well as aspects not protected.
One aspect protected by the Supreme Court is the extent of prior restraint. Prior restraint is a constitutional doctrine that prevents the government from prohibiting speech or publication before the fact. In the past, Congress would try and limit speech, such as with the Alien and Sedition Acts, but the Supreme Court didn't take a solid position on the overall issue until the 1970s. The major case that established this protection was the New York Times Co. v. U.S. case in 1971. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government was not allowed to block the publication of secret Department of Defense documents illegally furnished to the Times by anti-war activists. By ruling this way, the Supreme Court is showing that they want to minimize government intervention when it comes to citizens' choices to publish various materials.
The U.S. Supreme Court also provides protection against symbolic speech, even if the material they are protecting is very controversial. Symbolic speech refers to any symbols, signs, or other methods of expression used to get a person's point across to their audience. Protection against symbolic speech began in 1931 with the Supreme Court case of Stromberg v. California. In this case, the Court overturned a communist youth camp director's conviction under a state statute prohibiting the display of a red flag, which is a symbol of opposition to the U.S. government. Symbolic speech can be an extremely effective method of expression, but at the same time, it can be a very offensive form of expression. For example, a person can burn the American flag to protest against the government, but that action can cause a huge uproar. I think there needs to be a line drawn to separate symbolic speech that is effective and not too offensive from speech that causes anger and hostility among the citizens.
In terms of unprotected speech and press, the most common form of speech that is unprotected is libel and slander. Libel is a written statement that defames a person's character, while slander is the spoken form of the statement. These statements are unprotected since these types of expressions have no essential part of any exposition of ideals. While protected forms of speech are protected since they don't necessarily target a single person's or group's character or ideals, unprotected forms of speech such as libel and slander are not protected because they are intended to disrupt the peace of the community. Another form of unprotected speech that falls into this category are fighting words. These are words that inflict injury or create an immediate breach of peace at the moment they are spoken. I obviously won't go into listing examples of fighting words since they are inappropriate, but these words definitely tend to incite some conflict within a community. I honestly think it is the right choice for the Supreme Court to not protect these specific forms of expression because the only outcome from these forms of expression is negative.
Overall, we as Americans have a variety of ways to express our opinions freely without government intervention. It is when we cross the line and begin to disrupt the peace that the U.S. government has to intervene and keep control. This whole situation is a touchy subject since there are so many varying opinions on how much freedom should be allowed, but overall, I feel that right now is sufficient enough to keep the majority of citizens content.
No comments:
Post a Comment