The Right for Freedom of Expression - Coursework Example

The Right to Free Expression Our constitutional liberties and guaranteed freedoms form the framework that defines us as a nation. The quality of lifethat is uniquely American is molded by our ability to express ourselves, defend ourselves, and worship our individual god. In many parts of the world the word freedom has become synonymous with America. Our right to free expression and speech has been instrumental in guarding our system from tyranny and giving every man a voice. Yet, some of it is illusion, some of it is myth, and much of it is misunderstood. Upon a close examination of our freedom of speech we uncover limitations and exclusions. It has been altered over time and made to fit the current socio-political situation. While we believe we have nearly absolute freedom to say what we want when we want to, the truth is that our freedom to express is a relative term that evolves and contracts to fit the prevailing community standards. Limitations on the freedom of expression have been implemented in the interest of public safety, riot control, individual protection against untruths, and as a necessity of war. I think censorship that prevents sensitive information from getting into the hands of the enemy is a necessity. However, the American Civil Liberties Union contends that our freedom of speech has also been threatened by restrictions that suppress political opposition and minority opinions (American Civil Liberties Union). Anti-slavery movements, minority religious sects, and labor organizers have been squelched by the majority power in an effort to maintain the status quo. This is far outside the intent and the spirit of the first amendment. New ideas and social reform comes from our ability to speak freely. There have even been recent reports of the Patriot Act being used to investigate anti-war movements in the name of national security. I view this as an abuse of power and limits the ability to have a healthy public debate. The 1930s experienced censorship in the media based on a religious based agenda that stated that, "…the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil or sin"(Heins). This opened the door for the freedom of speech to be framed in the subjective interpretation of evil and sin. The transgressions were more often than not the advocacy of communistic or socialist ideas, which the government viewed as evil. I believe this was a misguided effort to persuade artists to conform to the moral values of the power structure. Through coercion and intimidation, the Hayes Censorship Committee convinced the movie studios to relinquish their freedom of expression and left the legacy of the movie codes that we have today. The unintended consequences, the ratings system, can be seen as a limitation on free speech, but have evolved to become a necessary part of our technology based media. In the 1970s, Vice President Spriro T. Agnew called for a prohibition on selected pieces of art that he considered subversive. This was an over-reaction to the anti-war movement and left wing politics. While the 1930s Hayes movement closely mirrored the politics of society, Agnews calls were never able to gain the support of the public. I think Americas values are the determining factor in accepting limitations on expression or rejecting its notion outright. Throughout these years of ever changing freedom of expression, the Supreme Court has been tasked with weighing our individual liberty and balancing it against the welfare of the public. The Court has ruled that speech can not be banned by the government simply because it is in disagreement with their policies. In this regard the court has been successful in maintaining the value of the freedom of speech. The court has protected speech that may contribute to the evolution of society even when it is undesirable to the people in power. The Court considers whether the speech has any social value, if the state has a compelling reason for limiting it, and if the first amendment is the most effective method of controlling the problem (Cornwell 1348-1350). I think courts have rightfully banned speech which may incite a riot or violence. Freedom implies a certain degree of responsibility. I believe that the court has been diligent in considering whether the speech has enough social value to be protected. In the early days of the nation, freedom of speech was so highly regarded that it protected all speech without regards to its accountability to the truth. Early Libertarians argued that a person may, "…say everything which his passions suggest; he may employ all his time, and all his talents...to do so, in speaking against the government matters that are false, scandalous and malicious" (American Civil Liberties Union). Over time the law has gained a more pragmatic approach to the freedom and has outlawed slander and libel. In addition, numerous laws and rulings ban certain speech in specific situations. Only in recent decades has prayer been banned in schools. Banning school prayer is an unwarranted restriction on free speech that is a result of an over-zealous effort to keep church and state separate. School should be a setting that protects all speech, including the majority opinion. Schools have usually been pro-active in protecting the right to express a minority opinion. Though our interpretation of the freedom of speech has been altered to fit our culture and technology, it still maintains the special value that was placed on it when the constitution was drafted. It has been advocated that students should not be accorded their full banquet of rights. The right of privacy, Miranda rights, and due process have all been significantly reduced or eliminated in an educational environment. However, when it comes to the freedom of expression the courts generally disagree. In considering students rights, the Court ruled that, "To justify a prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, school officials must be able to show that their action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint" (Essex 139). This opinion is an admirable guideline, but fails to recognize the authority of the school. Students, especially in lower grades, should have to conform to a set of standards in regards to speech. However, the American judicial system places an almost sacred value on our freedom of expression, and has granted students a wide latitude in this area. This is in contrast to search and seizure protections which are typically suspended in a school setting. Wartime brings to the forefront the necessity of restricting individual speech in an effort to protect our national security. The public willingly cedes many of their freedoms and the freedom of speech is greatly eroded by overzealous politicians and unrealistic fears. Since 9/11 and the war on terror, our ability for self expression has been limited by the Patriot Act. While it does not attack free speech directly Logan contends that, "…the relaxation of laws regarding government surveillance and wiretapping of suspected terrorists may have a chilling effect upon certain forms of free speech and free association" (880). The Act had its greatest impact on people of an Islamic background or a Middle Eastern heritage and may limit their expression of faith. The Patriot Act indirectly intimidates and regulates a persons speech and from this standpoint it is an erosion of freedom of speech. Just knowing that there is the possibility of being monitored will result in changing behavior. This is an unfortunate, yet necessary, consequence of being at war. Certain government activities such as eavesdropping will be necessary. However, it should not be a blanket reason to suppress free speech of all kinds. While it was aimed at Islamic extremists, it also throws a quiet silence across the anti-war debate. Numerous other acts of expression are banned or are regulated and controlled. Impersonating a police officer is illegal as it is in the interest of public safety. Defamation, obscenity, slander, and libel all are controlled as a reflection of our social value placed on truth. The necessity of getting a permit for a public demonstration is a limit placed on our right to assemble and make a public expression. Limiting the number of participants and restricting access are also methods used to indirectly impede our freedom of expression. The redefining of a criminal activity as a hate crime further erodes our freedom of expression. Taken alone, none of these actions place much burden on the individual in regards to the loss of freedom. However, taken together there has been a significant impact on the definition of the limits of freedom. Still, I believe that these are reasonable restrictions given the current society we live in and the technology available. Freedom is a relative term that is never as absolute as the early Libertarians advocated. The freedom of speech has been redefined since the Declaration of Independents vision of a natural right. It has been done with the cooperation of a public that treasures their freedom of expression and accepts the responsibility that goes along with it. The freedom of speech has held a special place in Americas ideals ever since it was elevated to a natural right granted by a god. Early beliefs that this right was total and absolute left no room for the input of society. Yet, over the years our freedom of speech has been tempered by reality and responsibility. The greatest threats to our freedoms of speech and expression are war and our governments reaction to war. The Patriot Act gives the government broad and sweeping power to intrude upon our privacy and intimidate the limits of our expression. While the Patriot Act does not directly tell a person what they can not say or what charity they can give to, it can emotionally coerce them into a dialogue that is more desirable to the government. Still, we are free to speak and act as we wish if we are willing to assume the consequences. The individual, just like the court, must examine all the alternatives and make their own personal choice. The right to free expression can only be eroded when the public, or the individual, assents to it. The assault on free speech is tempered by a responsible society that accepts a well-reasoned sacrifice of liberty for security. Works Cited American Civil Liberties Union. Freedom of Expression: ACLU Briefing Paper Number 10. New York: ACLU, n.d. 8 Feb. 2008 . Cornwell, Andrea. "A Final Salute to Lost Soldiers: Preserving the Freedom of Speech at Military Funerals." American University Law Review 56.5 (2007): 1329-74. 8 Feb. 2008 . Essex, Nathan. "Student Distribution of Religious Fliers in Public Schools." The Clearing House (2006): 138-43. EBSCO. 8 Feb. 2008. Heins, Marjorie. "The Miracle: Film Censorship and the Entanglement of Church and State." The Free Expression Policy Project. 28 Oct. 2002. University of Michigan. 22 July 2006 . Logan, Christina C. "Liberty or Safety: Implications of the USA Patriot Act and the UKs Anti-Terror Laws on Freedom of Expression and Free Exercise of Religion." Seton Hall Law Review 37 (2007): 863-91. 8 Feb. 2008 . Read More