Freedom of Speech - Essential to Free Society

Freedom of Speech:

Essential to Free Society











Jacob Oblak















Seminar in Educational Inquiry

Professor Genese Grill

April 21, 2010

Thesis and Outline



Thesis: America’s departure from the freedom of speech in favor of hate speech crime legislation and corporate speech necessitates an even more rigorous defense of free speech.



1. Hate Speech

A. First Amendment

B. Founding Fathers and Freedom

C. Forcing Morality

D. From Speech to Thought Crimes

E. Feeling Good

2. Corporate Speech

A. Individual vs. Corporation

B. Free Speech vs. Corporations

C. People’s money vs. Corporations

D. Oligarchy and Corporations



























Jacob Oblak

Genese Grill

Educational Inquiry

04/21/2010





Freedom of Speech – Essential to Free Society





America has many values gleaned from both the past and the present. America contains much diversity of race, religion, and lifestyle. Yet there is one bedrock principle that precedes any of this diversity: the freedom of speech. Without this freedom of speech, true democracy would fall, and with it all other freedoms. Today, two ways in which freedom of speech is undermined are manifested with widespread support of hate speech legislation and the current Supreme Court’s handling of corporations’ rights. These disturbing trends result in America’s departure from the freedom of speech in favor of hate speech crime legislation and corporate speech and necessitate an even more rigorous defense of free speech from those who wish to remain free.

Arguing that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected Whitney’s right to teach syndicalism and retain membership in the Communist Labor Party, Supreme Court Justice Brandeis articulated one of the most rigorous defenses of free speech:

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government… They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. (U.S. Supreme Court)

Brandeis argues brilliantly that America cannot enjoy its political freedom without the basic right to free speech. Free speech is protected against government intrusion in any circumstance except slander or sedition. Brandeis defines Miss Whitney’s felony as essentially teaching syndicalism (Whitney), which “is a radical political movement that advocates bringing industry and government under the control of labor unions,” according to Princeton University (WordNet). However, the Supreme Court decided in 1927 that individuals are free to advocate anything they wish as long as they refrain from sedition and slander.

Deborah M. Galvin, behavioral science PHD and director of the federal Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, might disagree. She, and Many Americans with her, argues that our government must regulate speech so as to eliminate hurtful speech (Galvin). And to some extent, she is correct. If by hurting others with words she means slander (falsehood that injures), sedition (advocating violent overthrow of government), or advocating violence towards others in just about any way, she’s right - throw the book at them and bring the law after them. The Constitution prohibits those activities. But if a Ku Klux Klansman wants to stand on the street corner and yell about supposed white supremacy, one can choose not to walk down that street; one can choose not to listen; and one can choose to blare music over his insanity – personal rights have not been breached. His words could offend if one chose to listen to him. Even if the listener was white, what the KKK person would say that about fellow brothers and sisters would still hurt. But again, he has neither violated any freedoms or rights, nor committed slander, sedition, or advocating violence.

While at first glance hate speech may appear to be slander, this is not the case. Slander is legally defined as “A false defamation … which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed (Lectric).” This is the legal definition of hate speech:

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

(Hate Speech)

And there are two major differences. Hate speech is simply verbally attacking someone's social or ethnic group. Slander is false defamation that results in injury. The first major difference is that slander is, by definition, false. The attack the slanderer makes is inherently, intrinsically false. The second major difference is that slander results in injury. Therefore, slander is not equal to hate speech. Slander is legally prohibited; hate speech is protected under the First Amendment.

America's apparent disregard for our first amendment rights is scary. Most of the founding fathers refused to agree to the Constitution until it was agreed that there would be a Bill of Rights, and New Hampshire and North Carolina refused to sign it until the Bill of Rights was actually added (Constitution). The founders declared (in the Declaration of Independence) “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” “Only among these” means that there are more. In fact, according to historians, John Dickinson, among others, refused to even sign the Declaration of Independence because they hadn't written out what exactly those rights were. He wanted a Bill of Rights before he'd sign (Bloy).

Today, many have forgotten what it was like to not be guaranteed free speech – about anything. Once government limits free speech in one area, then restrictions will spread to other areas like a cancer. Once government says the Ku Klux Klan member cannot speak his mind on the street corner in public, then it must also ban any books or websites that spread his viewpoint. Limits will not stop at racist speech – limitation will stretch to other places no one thought it would, or would want it to. Once free speech is taken away, it will be almost impossible to regain it.

A notable example of free speech gone hateful is in Westboro Baptist Church’s protests. According to the Anti Defamation League, the members of Fred Phelps’ family and other members of his church protest at a variety of functions, including funerals, weddings, schools, twitter headquarters, and generally anything involving homosexuals. They claim to be Christian, Baptist, Calvinistic, and preach the Bible. Yet they’ve been captured on TV, YouTube, and documentaries screaming and swearing at anyone who comes within earshot, raising signs that say: “God hates fags,” “God hates America,” “Thank God for dead soldiers,” “God is your enemy,” “9-11 a gift from God,” “Don’t pray for the USA.” They believe that military deaths in Iraq are God’s punishment for America’s acceptance of homosexuality (Westboro Baptist Church).

According to CNN, Westboro was sued in 2007 by the Snyder family, after Westboro protested at the funeral of Albert Snyder’s son Matthew who died in Iraq. Originally, the Snyders won the case and were awarded about eleven million dollars, which was later reduced to five million. On federal appeal, the decision was reversed, and the Snyders were told to pay court fees, totaling more than sixteen thousand dollars. The US Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear the case (Grinberg).

Westboro’s actions are indeed heinous. Many Americans, if not most, would agree that the Supreme Court should rule against them. This, however, does not take into consideration the First Amendment, which explicitly states that there can be no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Westboro has not employed violence, and have merely expressed in writing and in speech their views. The Supreme Court cannot rule against them without overturning the First Amendment. A free society must, on occasion, permit what it hates in order to maintain its freedom.

Some get so caught up in the fact that Westboro members are admittedly intending to hurt the feelings of others that many rush to limit the speech of those who are abusing their freedom to speak. However, in doing so, they fail to see where this inevitably leads our nation: a 1984 society. If calling a colored person a racist name is illegal, why isn't calling a white person a name? Why isn't saying Westboro's members are closed-minded bigots not wrong? They are, after all! We must understand that calling Westboro members closed-minded bigots is no less insulting than calling a colored person a racist name. Somehow America has justified one and not the other. Social norms dictate to the majority of Americans that racism is wrong, and it is. But unfortunately many try to fight it on a political front by making laws against it. Any insult to anyone is equal to racist hate speech. For instance, when people call G. W. Bush an idiot, they are just as guilty of hate speech as the racist or homophobic guy down the street. They cannot limit his free speech while allowing themselves more freedom. It will not always stay that way. If those with whom society disagrees are not free to speak their minds, then eventually society’s freedoms will be limited to the same degree. In other words, American society cannot have its cake and eat it too. Those who wish to censor the hateful speech they find abhorrent will eventually lose their own freedom to speak when the power decides their speech is abhorrent. As Charles Levendosky, a well-known poet and writer, articulated, “Those who censor others, eventually censor themselves…. As the great First Amendment scholar Alexander Meiklejohn put it … “To be afraid of any idea is to be unfit for self-government” (qtd. Williams 174-175).

The only solution for hate speech is more speech, reasonable speech. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it” (Jefferson). In Westboro’s case, many different methods have been employed. Counter-protests have been staged across the nation in defiance of Westboro’s hatred, and as shown in the news, Westboro’s hate has been outstaged and silenced by loud singing (Kreiger), revving motorcycles (Donovan), and hysterically funny nonsense signs (Stopera). These groups apply their own freedom of speech in a positive way, presenting viewers with an alternative to Westboro’s speech. Both forms of speech are legally valid, and as a free society we must be free to think and believe as we wish. The only logical extension from freedom of thought is the freedom to express that thought.

Defenders of hate speech legislation could argue that hate speech should be illegal because it crosses the line between negativity of some thing and some one. To clarify, they could argue that it’s ok to voice a negative view about a subject, but not about a person. However, to outlaw hate speech on the grounds that it’s negative towards another person is hypocritical. By definition, vocal disapproval of the person employing hate speech is the very “crime” the first person committed. In other words, by saying, “you shouldn't be hateful” to the man who said “you shouldn't live a life of homosexuality,” they commit the very act they abhor.

Besides, if someone said to a homosexual that being homosexual is sinful, you can bet they're going to understand that I disapprove of their lifestyle – it's now personal. There's no way to express that opinion without it becoming personal the second it is voiced. The very fact that he believes homosexuality sinful means that he also believes that the homosexual is wrong for practicing it. There's no way around it. Granted, believing that homosexuality is wrong does not preclude continuing to love homosexuals in spite of disagreement. But legally there's no difference. Free speech doesn't stop at opinions of lifestyles in a vacuum – it applies to opinions about people, to people, and with people. Freedom of speech is very personal. And freedom of speech is absolutely necessary to maintaining freedom itself.

The bottom line is this: a free society cannot censor its citizens’ speech –“censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime,” as Supreme Court Justice Stewart dissented in 1965. To censor is to relinquish freedom. The Founders initiated a free society based firmly on a government prohibited from passing any law infringing upon its citizens’ freedom of thought, speech, and expression.

America faces enough of these attacks on freedom of speech. However, adding to the frenzy, freedom of speech is also being assaulted by the current Supreme Court’s errant views and rulings regarding corporations’ rights. The Supreme Court, in January, decided to allow corporations to use their treasury funds to run political influence campaigns through mailings, TV ads, and numerous other avenues. Many, like the president of the League of Women Voters in New Jersey Anne Maiese, believe this opens wide the gates for corporate manipulation of federal elections and democracy can now be bought and sold (Maiese). This situation will play out in upcoming elections, and the extent and scope of this decision will be obvious. Special interest groups with billions of dollars, according to this decision, my now heavily advertise and promote to their advantage. While consistent with his usual over-the-top fashion, Keith Olbermann succinctly outlined the probable if not inherent outcomes of this decision. He argued that in spite of the Supreme Court’s insistence that their decision upheld free speech, the voice of the individual, and therefore the voice of the people, can and will be smothered, successfully eliminating freedom of speech itself (Olbermann).

Anna Burger, America’s Secretary Treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, goes even further:

There can be no doubt: The voice of everyday working Americans in the political process will be muted. How can they compete for airtime with the deep pockets of multinational corporations? The court's decision has said loud and clear that Mr. Smith has no business in Washington -- that seat's been sponsored by Wal-Mart.

(Burger, qtd in Who)

Even if freedom of speech were not under attack with this ruling, it would be a cause of great concern to the safety of the democracy of the United States. Most of us have heard the old saying that “politics follows the Golden Rule...those who have the gold, rule,” but this decision by our Supreme Court takes it to a whole new level. Allowing corporations, usually owned and run by one person or one small group of persons, to spend however much they want essentially allows them to buy votes. The riches of these corporations, derived from the public’s pockets, can now be spent to further the interests of big business and big government. Consumers, who must spend their money to buy necessities like food and clothing, now must stand helplessly watching as those corporations use their money funding political campaigns the consumers may or may not favor. In effect, with our money go our vote and our voice, exiting the hands of the people and landing squarely in the lap of the executive upper class on Wall Street.

But in the end, it’s really not even about anyone’s preferences. This decision affects the very freedom of speech the Supreme Court claimed to defend. With this decision, the individual’s freedom of speech is now limited by the fact that he’s only an individual. He’s still allowed to speak, but it's roughly the equivalent of telling him that he’s allowed to voice his opinion – and then turning music up to 300 decibels and starting the vacuum! The individual’s voice, albeit free to speak, carries no weight and therefore cannot affect any change because it cannot be heard. According to Russ Feingold, senator from Wisconsin, “this decision gives a green light to corporations to unleash their massive coffers on the political system. The profits of Fortune 500 companies in 2008 alone were 350 times the entire amount spent on the last presidential election” (Feingold, qtd in Who). Suddenly the corporations’ "freedom of speech" (run by a select few with the power, control, and money) carries millions of times more weight (in American dollars) than does the average person’s freedom. So by multiplying the effect of the corporations’ “free” speech, the Court has divided the individual’s by the same number, seriously diminishing his ability to have any effect at all. And individuals’ free speech is not alone in its suffering. “The voices of candidates and political parties just got much quieter” as well, according to Ben Ginsberg, national counsel to the Bush-Cheney presidential campaigns of 2000 and 2004 (Ginsberg, qtd in Who).

Therefore, while claiming to defend free speech, this Supreme Court decision has upended the balance of free speech in favor of Wall Street and the big corporations who run it. The Supreme Court has severely missed the point by deciding that corporations’ voices should be allowed to drown out the people’s voice. This decision reeks of oligarchy, promises even more future political greed, and guarantees that politicians and votes will be bought and pocketed like never before. And the recipient of this suppression of free speech will be, as always, the people.

Today’s society attacks freedom of speech in many ways. Both legislation prohibiting hate speech and allowing corporations individual free speech rights undermine America’s freedoms. This dangerous trend can only be diverted by the people for whom the Constitution was written. We, the American people, have the incredible responsibility to protect freedom of speech at any cost – other freedoms exist only because the people exercised their free speech. Free speech precludes other freedoms, and therefore must be protected at any cost.





















Works Cited













Bloy, Marjie. "John Dickinson, who refused to Sign". A Web of English History. 04/26/2010 .

"The Constitution". The White House. 04/21/2010 .

Donovan, Gilbert. “The Patriot Guard Vs. Westboro Baptist Church: A Contrasting Religious Twist”. Associated Content. 04/20/2010 .

Galvin, Deborah M. “Hate Speech - Violence & Substance Abuse Prevention.” 2004. Online Powerpoint. Samha.gov. 26 April 2010. www.workplace.samhsa.gov/Prevention/Pages/Docs/hate-speech.ppt.

"GINZBURG V. UNITED STATES, 383 U. S. 463 (1966)". US Supreme Court Center. 04/21/2010 .

Grinberg, Emanuella. “Dead Marine's father ordered to pay protesters' legal costs”. CNN. 4/20/2010 .

"Hate Speech Law & Legal Definition". US Legal Definitions. 04/26/2010 .

Jefferson, Thomas. “The Papers of Thomas Jefferson”. Princeton University. 04/20/2010 .

Kreiger, Lisa. “Palo Alto school greets protesters with song, signs”. Mercury News. 04/20/2010 .

“The Lectric Law Library”. 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon. 04/20/2010 .

Maiese, Anne. "Supreme Court Decision Endorses Corporate Manipulation of Election Outcomes". League of Women Voters in New Jersey. 04/26/2010 .

Olbermann, Keith. "Olbermann: U.S. government for sale". MSNBC. 04/26/2010 .

Stopera, Matt. “The 30 Best Anti-Westboro Baptist Church Protest Signs”. Buzz Feed. 04/20/2010 .

"U.S. Supreme Court: Whitney v People of State of California , 274 U.S. 357 (1927)". FindLaw: For Legal Professionals. 04/21/2010 .

"Who is helped, or hurt, by the Citizens United decision?". The Washington Post. 04/26/2010 .

"Westboro Baptist Church ". Anti Defamation League. 04/20/2010 .

"Witney v. California". Cornell University Law School. 04/27/2010 .

Williams, Mary. Hate Groups: Opposing Viewpoints. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press, 2004.

"WordNet Search - 3.0". Princeton University. 04/27/2010 http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=syndicalism.