The Complexities Behind the First Amendment: To Say or Not to Say?

The question of “Freedom of Speech” versus hate speech has been debated for ages. Since the First Amendment was established, there has always been historical changes in what is protected under “Freedom of Speech” and what is not. Historic Supreme Court Landmark cases even cover situations related to “Freedom of Speech” and personal expression. A prime example, Tinker v. Des Moines, is about students in Des Moines, who wore black armbands as a silent protest against the Vietnam War; a sign of public disapproval of the United State's involvement in the conflict.

School administration upon finding out their plans gave a warning of the consequences, however, the students continued their plans regardless, resulting in a suspension for all participants. Outraged parents took this incident to the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Iowa, which ruled against the students. Involved students and parents then took the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court hence ruled (7-2) in favor of the students wearing black armbands in school to protest the United State's involvement in the Vietnam War. 

The case ultimately ruled that both faculty and students did not lose their constitutional rights when entering educational institutions. Not only that, schools were unable to confiscate or prohibit certain actions based on suspicions of disrupting the educational environment (United States Court). Despite how long ago the case may have been, the issues at heart are still prevalent to this day. The phrase, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” for example, questions whether such expressions should be welcomed in academic environments. This paper shall cover the complexities that come with deciphering public expression and whether it is truly “Freedom of Speech” or punishable under the law. 

What is “Freedom of Speech”?

“Freedom of Speech” is a term that is often tossed around with no second thought behind what it truly means. Speech definitively refers to the sayings and writings publicly declared, saying Congress should not make law (unless under exceptional circumstances) controlling what they choose to express publically. Individuals are protected from any repercussions in what they choose to proclaim towards government organizations. These rights are not limited to vocal expression but can extend to press, printed entities, and illustrative iconographies that represent any sort of allegory. These protections are not extended to private institutions and are directed solely to the government (National Constitution Center).

Today, those protections can be portrayed in how freedom of speech is exercised and argued to protect individuals and institutions. Take for example the case of TikTok and the speculation over possible data breaches of USA citizens’ data or other controversial matters. In the end, freedom of speech is a fundamental component of American rights and provides a means to speak out vastly greater than many other countries or political ideologies. “Freedom of Speech” is believed to be embedded in America’s self-governance and culture, allowing innovations to sprout and branch out, reaching into the hearts and minds of all,  and exemplifying such importance in American society (Americans for Prosperity).

What is Hate Speech?

With all allowances in society, there are limits. Hate speech in the legal realm is defined as a form of expression intended to villainy or target a particular group or individual based on an uncontrollable or identity factor, such as race, religion, disability, ethnicity, origins, etc. Contrary to public belief, the First Amendment protects hate speech as long as it does not cause immediate violence and threats toward a minority group. The line in which hate speech loses legal protections is when criminal activities start to take action in forms of assault, attempts at intimidation, destructive acts, murder, vandalism, etc. (American Library Association).

Supreme Court case, Snyder v. Phelps, involves a Westboro Baptist Church that attended military funerals to convey the feelings of their disdain for the current state of the United States. The involvement caused emotional distress to the Synder family, leading them to take the incident to the courts. Due to the signs expressing general opinions rather than targeting a specific individual, the court ruled the church had the right to publicly announce its belief in the end of the United States because of any lack of disruption to the funeral (Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center). 

The Complexities Behind Defining Hate Speech & the Differentiation

The distinction between hate speech and expressing personal views is on rocky interpretations and a means of controversy in both personal and academic spaces. As mentioned in Snyder v. Phelps, hate speech that may be offensive or cause emotional distress, is still protected under the First Amendment. As long as it is not considered fighting words or causes immediate violence to occur), those who may feel affected are unable to initiate tort liability. A modern instance is the interpretation of the phrase, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and the controversy behind protestors shouting this phrase in public, specifically on college campuses.

Due to the phrase’s meaning being considered ambiguous or having different interpretations over time, the lines in how to censor and necessarily label the political slogan become blurry. College campuses publicly argue for the phrase meaning the liberation of Palestine. At the same time, organizations like the American Jewish Committee, claim they are advocating for the cleansing of the Jewish people in the region (Vox). As of recently, Meta’s court has ruled that the phrase, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” is not hate speech, which has brought controversy over its decision, and compared to how other entities have reacted to this phrase (Washington Post)

Concluding Thoughts

From understanding the fundamentals of the First Amendment to how hate speech is defined, this paper covered specific examples in which the law has addressed these issues and how define may bring along controversy with it. As define is considered one of the most important rights in America, embedded in our Constitution itself, understanding such nuances is the key to understanding society and Legislative matters step by step.

Image Source: Pixabay