Freedom of Speech - Essay Example

Teacher’s ID Civil Liberties: Question 2 Freedom of speech acts as cornerstone of American constitution and society.It not only provides us liberty of expression but also acts as a preamble of personal privacy’s notion. However, there have been instances when the state itself deprived its citizens of these rights. Example of Imam Jamil Al-Amin is one such example of infringements of basic civil rights. Jamil Al-Amin is a dominant name in the history of African Americans and their struggle for civil rights. He was instructed by Supreme Court to put down his website after being convicted of murdering police officials (Salakhan n.p). Such measure was taken to ensure that opinions of judiciary were not influenced by external factors and remained bias-free. However, restricting free flow of information and only making limited facts available results in ineffective decisions. Depriving Al-Amin from his right of speech also gives rise to a probability that a general American is susceptible to abuse of power by authorities. It also raises a question if having different opinions (even unethical ones) makes infringement of freedom of speech legitimate. United States Courts have been visibly clear about what a free speech means. According to their version, freedom of speech includes not to speak, usage of black armbands by students, use of offensive words and phrases to convey political messages, contribution of money for political campaigns, advertising commercials products and to engage in symbolic speech. On the other hand, inciting actions that would harm others, making and distribution of obscene material would not be included in freedom of speech (“What Does Free Speech” n.p). In the light of these directions, there is already a conflict existing as to whether Al-Amin made an obscene and offensive material available to general public or whether he was using offensive speech to explain his political motives which is permissible under constitutional rights. It is also important to note that freedom of expression extends to speech, assembly, press and petition submitted to the government. In the light of these directions and assuming that Al-Amin’s actions concur with US Courts definition of freedom of speech, use of a website should have remained available to Al-Amin as being a form of press (“First Amendment” n.p). The argument is constructed on a premise that Al-Amin’s speech was for political motives and collection of financial resources; and a dissemination of print material to general public via web. If the court considers use of web by Al-Amin to disseminate offensive material, their jurisdiction may appear valid under the laws governing censorship of web which is a restriction on availability of information that government considers to inappropriate (“Freedom Online” n.p). However, socialists perceive such restriction as an infringement of civil liberties. It is important to note that such restrictions would only reflect doctrines of those in power, having an impact on civil liberties. Furthermore, an imposition of authority results in lesser expression of one’s thoughts. Observing definition of permissible speech and its corroboration with criticism on censorship on web, it can be seen that Supreme Court’s decision of depriving Jamil Al-Amin of expressing his opinion was an infringement of basic civil liberties. A critical analysis of these theoretical concepts indicates that infringement of civil liberty of a single citizen can be extended and replicated on others’ case as well. In Jamil’s case, the Supreme Court deprived him of expressing his opinion and also gathering funds for his cause which is also a classification of freedom of speech under Supreme Court’s definition (“What Does Free Speech” n.p). The first amendment itself celebrates difference of opinion and considers it a right of every American to express themselves while restricting Congress to cause any infringement. Such interference gives an undue dominance to state over its citizens and makes them prone to forced interpretations of information by authorities (Sullivan 124). It can be seen that this case reflects one man being restricted by judiciary and political system due to which the world did not knew his side of story until his book was published and his followers took initiatives. Replicating Jamil Al-Amin’s case on general public, Congress can make new policies that can be used to restrict Americans from expressing themselves and can also lead to violation of further civil liberties. Furthermore, it also gives dominance of different segments of government over general public (Sullivan 124). Imagine religious songs and criticism on government policies as being an attempt of inciting disturbance among public. Every new government can bring it own sets of insecurities reflecting in national policies and apply them on different aspects of American life. Beginning from web-based content, it will move onto published material, entertainment and even use of products and services. Infringing basic civil liberties would result in an extremist society which would once again push Americans to slavery and debauchery in political system since such usage of power would favor authorities instead of protecting rights of general public. It is also important to note that under first amendment, perceiving practices and opinions of other individuals as unethical does not provide us a license of making them cease to follow what they believe in. If allowed to do so, first implication of that would be restriction on religious beliefs. Religion lies in the core of every society more than other socio-political phenomenon. It is also evident that there have been major conflicts among different religions of the world on the names of which many wars have been fought. Therefore, only religious beliefs of those in power will remain dominant in the society leading to depriving general public of their civil liberty. Having different opinions also lies in the gist of current democratic social and political system. Open discussion and presence of arguments also helps judiciary to examine truth and select a more convincing version of it. Imagine depriving members of jury from expressing their opinion and its impact on final verdicts. Airing only dominant opinions also causes misbalance in society and further leads to anarchy. Also availability of information and its various versions to general public allows them to avoid abuse of power by authorities. In addition to that, social phenomenon like art and literature thrive in a society allowing autonomy and self-fulfillment (“The Right to Freedom” n.p; American Civil Liberties Union n.p). Absence of such elements would restrict sociological progress. Analyzing Jamil Al-Amin’s case indicated that being an American citizen, he had a right of expressing himself and use any channel that he deemed fit for that purpose. Any personal opinion of an individual can be met with arguments or criticism. However, depriving one from an opportunity of conveying their opinions is synonymous to not allowing them to have one. In addition to that, such infringements provide government and judiciary an undue dominance over general public whose interests have been protected by the constitution. A single step in the way of infringements can pave a way for a society which would be a replication of slavery; a society where only powerful would have civil rights. Works Cited American Civil Liberties Union. Joint Statement on Censorship and Science: A Threat to Science, the Constitution and Democracy. ACLU, 2007. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. “First Amendment.” Cornell University Law School. N.p, 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. “Freedom Online: Joint Action for Free Expression on the Internet.” Council on foreign relations. N.p, 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. Salakhan, Maury. Backgrounder on Imam Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (H. Rap Brown). The American Muslim. N.p, 20 Oct. 2005. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. Sullivan, Kathleen M. Two Concepts of Freedom of Speech. Harvard law review 143(2010): 124. “What Does Free Speech Mean?” United States Courts. Federal Judiciary, 2013. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. “The Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression.” Human Rights Commission New Zealand. Newzealand Govt, n.d. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. Read More