Relationship between Federalism and Freedom of Speech - Term Paper Example

The laws at every level of government must be in sync with one another so that there is legal harmony and some sort of coexistence at the two different levels of government.

On the other hand, the concept of freedom of speech refers to the power to freely say anything without fear of reprisal or attack by the forces of coercion or state machinery which are usually at the disposal of the powers that be. This is to say that a citizen in a country where freedom of speech is guaranteed is constitutionally guaranteed the power to freely criticize and oppose the government if need be without feeling intimidated, through words and verbal rendition. Thus, this paper will draw the hypothetical relationship that exists between federalism and freedom of speech.

To begin with, for the past decades and the better part of the period, since the constitution was brought into existence and being, it was the first amendment to legalize the freedom of speech. This ensured that no free citizen within the country would be charged in a criminal matter case for the words said by the same free citizen and individual. Thus, it became a good gain and benefit for the law and the citizens of the nation because they were given the power to freely give and air their opinion in matters about the running of the state and the country as a whole.

For instance, if the executive was not performing well to satisfy the interest of the people then they were free to put forth their feelings to that effect. It is imperative to assert that the doctrine and power of free speech were made homogenous across all the devolved units of government. This is to say that since the constitution is the superior legislative document and law, then all the other state laws and regulations to the effects of limitations of freedom of speech are inferior. In other words, it is guaranteed that a citizen would be free to exercise the powers of freedom of speech in all the states and devolved units of government without intimidation or reprisal from any quarter of state or local authority.

It then follows that the individuals within the different states are free to oppose by way of speech policies and laws that do are not construed in the interest of the public. A practical case and instance are in a country o state where the executive rules with an iron fist to the extent to which it inspires cronyism and sycophancy (Levy, 1960). This happens while all the citizens in the state pay lip service to the tyrannical rule and authoritarian regime while their welfare and quality of life seem to deteriorate. Thus, it would become practically impossible and difficult for the executive and the government to improve the living standards of the people because they may feel and think that the citizens are enjoying the services.

It would therefore be difficult for the executive to change or be compelled by the public pressure to exert on the government to act and improve the welfare of the people. This presents a sharp contrast to the power of freedom of speech where if there is mounting pressure and discontent from the members of the public then the executive may be forced to act positively to inspire change that the people may advocate for. This would also happen if the power to act freely act is homogenous and cuts across all the states, so that if any change is needed then the public pressure through all the different states would be similar.

On the contrary, federalism in freedom of speech may also be an undoing in some specific ways. For instance, if the powers of free speech border on obscenity, pornography, incitement, and espionage. This stems from the fact that the freedom of speech should not be viewed as an aid to enemies of the country or state. As much as there is the federal requirement of free speech, the federal states may outlaw the different instances where the freedoms may not suffice (Snyder, 2000). For instance, if there is a terror attack in a state such as the September 9/11 attack, then such a state may suspend free speech especially if it may be viewed as espionage or inciting or intended to aid enemies of the state.

Conclusion
The above essay has stipulated the instances where freedom of speech may be suspended in a state. It has also outlined the benefits of freedom of speech not only because it is constitutionally guaranteed, but it can also aid in asserting pressure on the executive to align them to the wishes of the public. Read More