The 1st Amendment-Freedom of Speech: To Regulate or Not to Regulate That is the Question - Research Paper Example

? The 1st Amendment-Freedom of Speech: To Regulate or Not to Regulate? That is the Question Due INTRODUCTION Most of us living in modern society take for granted that the majority of the things we think, believe, and know can be expressed without the worry of legal consequences. We are entitled to our individual opinions and ideals, even when they are contrary to others, or completely unheard of before. We have this privilege because we live in a country, like the United States, that maintains the right to freedom of speech, religion, petition, and assembly without the government stepping in to regulate these behaviors. Unfortunately for all of the wonderful personal and societal freedoms that are protected, by the 1st Amendment, its protection also allows some questionable speeches, attitudes, and actions that may be less than deserving of that protection to continue. Some people today feel that certain forms of “freedom of speech” should be regulated, while others believe that it will only result in censorship and creep into areas where it should not be. However, the protection of freedom of speech is allowing things like bullying and hate crimes to continually slip through the cracks. For this reason it seems only ethical to reform the 1st Amendment to tackle these issues and continue to allow the spirit of freedom of speech to be maintained while making it harder and less legal to cause harm to others under the guise of freedom of speech. HISTORY The 1st Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Michigan States University , 2013). These words guarantee that every citizen the freedom to speak without consequences by the government, the right to publish and read printed material without fear of government censorship, the right to practice religion freely without governmental sanctions, to petition their government freely for or against policies that directly affect them, and finally, to peacefully assemble in protest policies and laws. The Supreme Court determined that these protections extend to artistic works, literature, television, theatre, and film. When such cases where freedom of speech has been put into question the court must review the situation from a specific perspectives."Content neutrality" refers to the reality that the court cannot be involved in the government limiting the artistic expression of any American, even if that expression may be found objectionable by some viewers or listeners (America Civil Liberties Union, 2006). However, it should be made clear that the 1st Amendment refers to the government and political involvement in an issue’ this does not cover any and all applications of freedom of speech. For example no one is “consequence free” when they decide that their need for expression influences them to shout “fire!” in a crowded building when there is not one. Or for things one says at their job. The first Amendment cannot always be used as a means to protect ones employment and to gain a free pass for telling off their boss, arguing with employees, or bad-mouthing the company that they work for. The 1st Amendment does not cover private businesses only prevents the government from interfering (Freedman, 2012), DISCUSSION Our founding fathers did not intend that the Amendment would be used by those with ulterior motives to spreads propaganda, hate, and agendas filled with cruel words. They certainly did not think that people should be able to say whatever they feel like saying without any repercussions, after all the founding fathers believed that if another said false words against you could be taken to court and accuse them of slander. It is these instances that many Americans are beginning to believe require government intervention and regulation. While others admit that issue like bullying and hate crimes are awful, allowing the government to regulate in this way then it is just one step closer to government censorship as a whole. In order to understand the argument better it would be best to discuss them individually. Freedom of Speech vs. Bullying Bullying is not a new phenomenon. It is something that was unfortunately experienced by many, if not most, children within their school environments, be it elementary, junior high, or high school. As cruel as the schoolyard shoving, hitting, the scathing words, and name calling can be, it is only gotten all the worse since social networks became the normal means that many kids, pre-teen, and teens communicate. The internet has allowed bullying to be ever more inescapable. Children not only must face the abuses in person, but at home, as well, and in cyberspace where such cruelties and insults can be shared and spread until the end of time (Trungma, 2013). It can become unbearable for many of the victims. Many young people have been pushed to suicide by the negative things that people were posting about them. In fact, many students have been told by their bullies that it would be better if they ended their own lives. Sadly, some of these children actually have done exactly that. These behaviors continue to be, nearly, unaddressed and allowed to proceed because much of this is protected under the rights given by the 1st Amendment. In this case it comes down to “accountability.” Bullying and Cyber-bullying are a national occurrence, it can be found among multiple demographics; all genders, races, cultures, religions, and ideologies (Busman, 2013). The victims claim that the treatment is wrong, while the perpetrators say that they can say what they want because of “freedom of speech.” The 1st Amendment was conceived to allow all to speak freely of their ideas and beliefs without fear, not to instill fear and threaten others. Abraham Lincoln once said that, “…The wolf and the sheep cannot agree upon a definition of the word liberty” (Trungma, 2013). In other words the wolf will always defend its right to kill the sheep and the sheep can complain about the wolves that hunt them. Of course bullies want the protection of the 1s Amendment to make it legal to do the cruel things that they do without any sense of responsibility or accountability. Freedom of Speech vs. Hate Crimes 1994 hate crimes were defined as being committed when the perpetrator selects their victim because of perceptions of race, gender, disability, ethnicity, skin color, or religion. Organizations like the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other racial supremist groups are a perfect example (Sprigg, 2013).While the freedom of speech protects their words, if they engage in violence or cause violence to be caused then consequences should be present. If they do engage in violence then they can be charged with those acts that are already illegal. Are we being intentionally naive that the words by hate mongers should be protected, even when we know that the words are inspired by a place of discrimination or hatred? (Haupt, 2005). More recently the term “Thought Crime” has been presented. This refers to the reason why you chose the victims that you chose. Robbing and beating a man is already illegal, but if you chose him because of his race over a victim of one’s own race then the act becomes a hate crime. We see hate crimes every single day and they are usually preceded by a lot of angry, hateful, cruel, and paranoia inducing words. There are already a number of things that the Amendment has been augmented to include in the past and modern hate crimes should be no different. This occurred when the laws were changed regarding the use of obscene and pornographic materials. (Head, 2013). Freedom of Speech vs. Censorship The biggest issue with any sort of change in the 1st Amendment is that those changes will allow changes in the future that could lead to a country of rampant censorship. However these amendments have been augmented in the past to change the laws allowing women to vote and freeing the African slaves and allowing them their proper citizenship. Why should not modern updates and change be implemented that fit these modern times. At the time of its conception the founding fathers had no way of knowing that cyber-bullying would exist and that hate mongers and hate organization would be able to hide behind it to continue sharing their hate. Censorship is, of course, a consideration, particularly, in the arts (America Civil Liberties Union, 2006). However, we are not talking about a few disagreeable lyrics in a song or an inappropriately dressed depiction of a woman. What we are talking about is protecting victims of continuous insults and abuses that affect their quality and equality of life. To Regulate or Not to Regulate? “The very essence of freedom is the obligation to accept responsibility for our choices. The Constitution does not shield us from that responsibility” (Freedman, 2012). Unfortunately, as long as individuals that participate in bullying, cyber-bullying, hate mongering, and hate crimes are doing exactly that. We still have to be responsible for our words, behaviors, and actions and be accountable for the outcomes and consequences of those words, behaviors, and actions. Regulation would allow those whose expressions should be supported by the 1st Amendment to do so and those that use it as an excuse for their behaviors would be forced to pay for the damage that they commit, whether it is verbal, physical, or in cyberspace. Regulation would also help the first Amendment from being the safety net for KKK propaganda and modern Nazi party dogma. It could return to its true purpose, which was protecting the arts, ideologies, and personal beliefs in a country of freedom, liberty, equality, and unending potential CONCLUSION The 1st Amendment was implemented because the founding fathers saw a country where people should be free to say what they think, to think outside the box, and to use diversity as a means to compromise and success. It was never meant to allow Grand Dragons of the KKK to swing dark-skinned baby dolls on tiny nooses simulating a lynching or watch a group of teenagers drive a shy, lonely, girl to take a razor blade to her wrists to make the insults stop. Change is necessary to grow and a wonderful place to start would be to redefine and reform the laws concerning freedom of speech. Implementing regulations will allow hateful propaganda and cyber-bullying, bullying, “gay bashing,” and racial intolerances to no longer come with a “get out of jail free card;” there would be real consequences for such actions. This will not lead to censorship, but a more just, accountable society that does not tolerate cruelty guised as freedom of speech. REFERENCES Busman, R. (2013). Free speech? free bullying?. The Huffington Post, 1. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-busman-psyd/free-speech-free-bullying_b_4235810.html Freedman, A. (2012). The first amendment won’t save you from your own bad judgment. Fox News, 1. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/26/first-amendment-wont-save-from-your-own-bad-judgment/ Haupt, C. E. (2005). Regulating hate speech—damned if you do and damned if you don’t: Lessons learned from comparing the german and u.s. approaches. Boston University International Law Journal, 23(299), 299-336. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/international/volume23n2/documents/299-336.pdf Head, T. (2013). Does hate crime legislation threaten free speech?. Civil Liberties, 1. Retrieved from http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/a/free_hate_speech.htm Sprigg, P. (2013). Questions and answers: What’s wrong with thought crime (“hate crime”) laws. Family Research Council, 1-4. Retrieved from http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09D48.pdf Trungma, B. (2013, September 15). Monitoring the cyberbullies while protecting free speech. The Las Vegas Guardian Express. Retrieved from http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/monitoring-the-cyberbullies-while-protecting-free-speech/ America Civil Liberties Union. (2006, August 30). What is censorship?. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/what-censorship Michigan States University . (2013). First amendment and the meaning of "free speech". Office for Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives, 1. Retrieved from http://www.inclusion.msu.edu/Equity/FirstAmendmentAndFreedomOfSpeech.html Read More