Freedom of Speech

the background and opinion of the first amendment and freedom of speech in general

   Thomas Edison once said,” Difference of opinion leads to inquiry and inquiry to truth.” Not everyone agrees, but without opinions our country would have never have made the progress it has. It is because of the first amendment that we are able to express our own opinions through what we view, what we voice, and how we choose to live our lives.

    We take our First Amendment for granted (Lieberman 11). Free speech did not appear from midair, people had to fight and go against moral values in life to receive what is available today. Freedom of speech was the last item added to the first amendment, and went through a long process getting there. In 1631, a man named Roger Williams arrived in America from England (The Bill of Rights and Beyond 9). He was a Puritan Minister who believed that the pilgrims of Massachusetts Bay had not gotten far enough from the Church of England (9). Massachusetts stated that “no man shall be admitted to the freedom of the body politic but such as are members of the same churches within the limits of same" (11). Williams went along with it but proclaimed that "forced worship is false worship", and reminded people that they have Liberty of complete separation of church and state, but the statement did not go well with Salem, and he was banished from their colony. He went south, and built a wooden cabin called Providence on what we call today, Rhode Island (9). Williams officially established freedom of religion in 1635. A century later, in 1776, George Mason wrote the Virginia Declaration of Independence, establishing the Anglican Church (12). Before that, the press began in 1639 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Print had to be approved by official censors before it was published into the paper (Lieberman 13).In 1735, Peter Zenger was jailed for seditious libel because he wrote about the Governor Cosby problems and that Cosby was hated and feared by the colony of Cambridge (14). He was forced to sit in jail until he was trialed. At the trial, Andrew Hamilton was his attorney and Mr. Bradley the prosecutor made a point on how Zenger admitted to guilt and requested the jury to find a “verdict for the King”. Although Hamilton proved it to be true, printing libel was not considered a crime, therefore Zenger was found not guilty. The fight for free speech continued on, giving citizens the freedom of religion, press, assemble, and petition.

    Even though in this country we are given the freedom of speech there are still those who will argue the dangers of such a freedom. Things like this lead to court cases such as Terminiello vs. Chicago, Feiner vs. New York, and Hustler Magazines/ Larry Flynt vs. Jerry Falwell. The court case of Terminiello vs.Chicago was held in 1946 when Arthur W. Terminiello, a Catholic Priest, became under suspicion by a bishop (Bender 133).

He travelled to Alabama from Chicago to argue that jews are neither killers or murderers (134). His speech stirred the city and started riots (133). This meeting was described by a man named Justic Robert H. Jackson. Jackson stated that Terminiello, in the end, was arrested because of disorderly conduct (133). After six justices held a conviction on this situation it was decided that any type of free speech that could cause a danger, some kind of evil to rise above the public and cause riots can and will be punished. The second court case, Feiner vs. New York is similar to Terminiello, but Irving gave a speech on bashing political representative. Feiner spoke on a street in Sycracrus, New York. The police wanted to arrest him to prevent him from causing a breach of the peace (135). He was giving a lecture bashing people like Mayor Costello, President Truman, Mayor O’ Dwyer, and The American Legion, while also telling Negroes to stand up for themselves (135). A crowd agreed with him and began to fill the streets. When the police came to get him off the streets, Irving refused arrest (135). The third and possibly the most important court case of these three is the case Hustler Magazine/Larry Flynt vs. Jerry Falwell. Between December 2^nd, 1987 and February 24^th 1988, Jerry Falwell, a minister sued Hustler Larry Flynt because of an advertisement. It was after the 1983 November Hustler Magazine went out that Falwell took the case to the United States District (The Trustees of Boston College). He explained that the advertisement was false because it talked about his “first time” and tricked him into discussing a rendezvous between him and his mother, when all it asked about was his first time he drank Cambari Liqueur. Therefore, Falwell sued Flynt for libel, invasion of privacy, and the emotional distress it caused him. The case went to trial over invasion of privacy but the judge could not find actual facts or events in which it was actually his life and not something he was told to say. Because of the lack of proof that Falwell did or did not have a script, the jury asked that he be rewarded $100,000 for the emotional distress that it put him through, and because a person can hold another liable for ruining their reputation caused by falsehood (The Trustees of Boston College). The court found that the parody of the advertisement is protected by the First Amendment because it did not state actual facts about Falwell (The Trustees of Boston College). “The freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty- and thus a good unto itself- but also is essential to common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.

-Bose Corp vs. Consumers Union of U.S. Due to the First Amendment and the lack of proof whether or not Falwell actually conversed with his mother, Flynt won his case.

    There are several issues that people debate over when it comes to freedom of speech; the question of porn being one of them. Pornography has always been around. It launched in movies, magazines, and television, to videos and now it can be found on the internet (Berne 14). It was only after it was published that Senator Dan Coats of Indians back in 1995 called online porn “ a unique, disturbing, and urgent circumstance” did teachers and parents of the area rushed to ban it from the internet (15). Online pornography has made purchasing it easy, when it used to be public. You can buy it online instead of going to the store (15). Pornography makes a lot of money and its industry is larger than the record and film industry combined (Bender 169). People have the right to freely watch and perform in pornography because of our first amendment. Some people like the idea of porn while others do not, such as Andrea Dworkin. Her opinion is that “men have created the group, the type, the concept, the epithet the insult, the industry, the trade, the commodity, and the reality of women as w****s { in pornography} (169). Jan LaRue speaks that pornography leads to sex crimes with children (21). He explains that people use the internet to not just view adults, but to view teens and children as well (21). People like Jan LaRue point out and voice that about 50,000 predators look at the internet for children and the information is traded with other sexual predators on online chat rooms (22). Everyone has their thoughts on everything, saying that online porn is not a free speech is one of them. J.D. Obenberger says that people have a right to online porn. It is even written in the law that we have rights to what we want; we have the word “Liberty” (Berne 48). “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything in which injures no one else” (48). While pornography falls under the category as a choice, it is not against the law such as underage illegal pornography with children and teenagers.

   As to a few examples of free speech, not just pornography views, court cases, and the fights our ancestors suffered through to give us what we have in our lives today. Advertising is a type of free speech in which one posts a free statement promoting a business or a company, convincing a person to buy a product. Those who see nothing wrong with advertisement see it as an enjoyment as long as it is truthful and shows information about something that can be legally sold (Dunn 83). Opponents say that it is not an important form of expressing oneself and only shows personal opinions (83). They also believe that the government should have the power to restrict commercial speech because it is protecting the health of the public (83). For example, The American Medical Association wants all tobacco product advertisements gone. It is their freedom to express that the advertisement promotes people to smoke (85). They know smoking is dangerous, and it is their choice whether or not they smoke. Advertisement or none, citizens will smoke if they choose (85). There is no way to get individuals to stop doing it just because someone takes all the advertisement promoting it away.

    Another example of freedom of voice is whether or not it is against American morals to burn the American Flag. According to the Supreme Court, flag burning is not an offensive way to express yourself (Bender 142). Chief Justice Earl Warren and Association Justices Hugo Black and Abe Fortas had a different prospect of flag burning (142). They confided in limiting free ranging tongues (142). Forty- eight states and the federal government came together, making laws prohibiting citizens from incinerating the American Flag (143). Although they banned an offensive way of verbalizing how one feels through physical action, the government have not removed the actual idea of it (142).

   Free speech is not really free because the population wants to put limits on us (Bender 124). Music is a very popular subject, and always has been. Notice in today’s society that rappers sing more and more about permiscuious women and shooting cops, along with many other things they can put to a tune. This refers back to having limits both privately and publicly. When rappers of Body Count released a CD with the song “Cop Killer”, which goes into detail about the actual killing of a cop, made a man named Charlton Heston furious (Bender 124). The lyrics of this song are protected by the First Amendment, and Heston could not do anything to argue about it. Simply censoring the song or pulling the CD off of the shelf in a store does not change what the song is about (146). Those who have a mindset like Heston agree that lyrics like “Cop Killer” need to be removed because it is wrong and “to defend freedom, you must also defend foulness” (146). It is the responsibility of parents to watch over what your children view. If you do not wish them to listen to music such as “Cop Killer” then you control that, no one else can. If you as a citizen do not like such music, simply do not listen to it. Just because one person may not like a song for its lyrics does not mean that no one else can like it either. The government at present is going against the UN Human Rights Council to limit the freedom of expression (Bayefsky The Weekly Standard). They have come to a conclusion with the Islamic countries who believe that anything said that is racist or discriminates religion should be restricted. The President values that having the right of freedom of speech, petition, assemble, and religion comes with responsibility and citizens do not show that they can handle these responsibilities and that they should be limited (Bayefsky The Weekly Standard).

    The totality of these arguments shows that free speech is used by everyone whether or not you are for it. To voice an opinion saying the government should reduce what can be said, is free speech. Detractors do not see it that way, but if a person actually thought about it, how can one intonate that the first amendment should be removed, when they use that amendment to say they want it gone to begin with? Everyone makes use of our first amendment just by saying it is wrong in the first place. Music, flag burning, pornography, and court cases are just the beginning of what that amendment has to offer citizens of the United States of America. Once the government starts to take away our voice in life everything the forefathers and our civil rights ancestors have fought for will be stripped from the book along with it. To take away the voice of the people, is to take away their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and when that happens, the minority’s voice will no longer be heard.