1Martinez

Emmanuel Martinez

Professor Dewey

ENG101

29 October 2018

The Freedom of Speech Under Attacked

Freedom of speech is the right to express opinions and ideas without interference,

censorship, or punishment by the government. The First Amendment right applies to all forms of

speech whether it’s offensive, discriminatory, racist, controversial, sexist, and unappealing. The

free speech rights granted by the constitution are broad but not absolute. With social media

platforms and news networks becoming a necessity in our lives, it is bound to heavily influence

the generations to come. Freedom of speech is a fundamental and concrete belief that the U.S

was built upon; it gives an individual the right to express their ideas and opinion regardless of its

content without censorship or punishment. However, there’s a drastic difference between the

concrete definition of Freedom of Speech and the way in which it is implemented and executed

in today’s ever changing modern society which is caused by not only social media and news

networks but also by the way in which the American public executes this right.

Although there is a concrete definition to Freedom of Speech it is bound to change under

certain legal circumstances.

“For instance, a number of supreme court decisions have denied First Amendment

protection to certain types of speech that are considered low value. In ​New York Times vs.

Sullivan ​(1964), the court ruled that a speaker could be punished for intentionally making
 2Martinez

false statements that damage someone’s reputation (a crime known as libel, slander, or

defamation)” (Freedom of Speech, par.4).

Threats, extortion, facilitation of criminal activity, and words whose purpose is to provoke

violence or disturbance of the peace, are a few of many First Amendment rights considered low

value. Under the law any kind of protest political or not cannot be silenced “simply because its

content might offend others or incite them to violence”(Freedom of Speech, par.4). Not only

does the definition change under certain legal circumstances but also in the way that the

American public implement and execute this right. For example, the historical presidential

election in 2016 gave rise to modern movements that will undoubtedly challenge the concrete

definition of the First Amendment and its use under state, national, and federal law.

Every single American citizen has the right to exercise their Amendment rights granted

by the constitution. It is utterly important to recognize that people “under the constitution” are

“free to hold even the most deplorable views, and to express them as well”(The Times Editorial

Board, par.2). Although, many have criticized the current 45th president of the United States on

his controversial and heated remarks and tweets, Rothman states that “ he has not yet abused his

power to censor his opponents”(2), and as Sessions said at Georgetown, “The President has free

speech rights too”(Rothman 2). It is fundamentally important that people know what rights are

given to them and how the law decides weather the way in which it is practiced is legal or not.

“Free speech applies not only to individuals, but also corporations, labor unions, and

certain other organizations under US law”(7). The ​Citizens United vs. Federal Election

Commission ​(2010), “extended First Amendment protection to political speech by such

organizations”(par.7), allowing them to give financial support to “advertise” or oppose

 3Martinez

“individual causes or candidates for office”(Freedom of Speech, par.7). The 230 of the

Communications Act (CDA) grants immunity to internet service providers like social media

platforms, news networks, and websites for content created by its users. With the presidential

election that took place in 2016 a different kind of free speech dilemma has erupted, creating a

change that may be viewed as dangerous in regards to the First Amendment right. This dilemma

has been taken way out of proportion to the point where conservative voices and supporters are

demonized and shouted down in American schools. Also, the intervention of the media isn’t

much help when it comes to accurately reporting and delivering to the American public.

This new threat to the First Amendment can be seen in American colleges were the

expression of controversial and offensive topics are put under severe scrutiny and intolerance.

“Controversy has surrounded freedom of speech on American college campuses, which have

been at the forefront of First Amendment issues since the 1960s”, a time when civil right and

anti-war activist created the Free Speech Movement to protest campus bans on student political

activities (Freedom of Speech, par.9). However, conservative critics claim that liberal colleges

have shifted away from supporting First Amendment rights and encouraging open political

discourse. These critics are weary that viewpoint discrimination will be encouraged on American

college campuses, preventing others from speaking when their message is considered offensive.

For example, “Antifa (short for anti-fascists) and other left-wing groups, staged demonstrations

to prevent right-wing political commentators like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos from

speaking at the University of California at Berkeley in 2017”(Freedom of Speech, par 9). The

organizers of these demonstrations from the left justify their actions by stating that they were

exercising their free-speech rights to oppose what they view as hate speech. However, as the
 4Martinez

weeks and months go by the desperation to shut down free speech whether it be on college

campuses or out in public are becoming more and more prevalent in our society.

“A highly publicized 2017 survey of 1,500 undergraduate college students appeared to

support the claim that intolerance of certain types of expression was imperiling free speech on

US college campuses” (par. 10). Survey organizer John Villasenor discovered that 51 percent of

participants found it acceptable to shout down or disrupt speakers they considered offensive or

hateful, while 19 percent were against physical force to silence such speakers. In addition, the

survey suggested that a reasonable majority of students favored that college campuses should be

safe spaces where students are “shielded from biased or offensive views”(par.10). “Polling

experts questioned Villasenor’s method, pointing out that the survey was administered to an

opt-in online panel of college students rather than a randomly selected, representative

sample”(Freedom of Speech, par.10). A 2016 Gallup poll of 3,000 college students showed

significantly different results with 78 percent of participants believing that an open learning

environment where students are exposed to many perspectives on important issues is a much

better safe space than censoring peoples free speech right simply based off of their content.

The freedom of speech is a fundamental and concrete idea that the U.S was built upon,

it’s what keeps America a great and free nation and this fundamental right is being challenged

and excluded from schools and public places. If Americans want to maintain this Amendment

right in its original form it needs to be put into practice and taught in public schools and give

children as well as teens a little taste of what an open discussion and debate looks like. It is

vitally important that this right be kept the way it was meant to be for the future generations to
 5Martinez

come. It was these same rights that enabled women to vote and obtain equal pay, it was the right

that aided in ending segregation, and it is the right that will enable communities to change for the

better. What is put out on social media and news networks isn’t always the truth but rather bias

and hatred that is shown, people aren't going to know the truth if all they do is sit on a couch and

listen to the media but what is going to bring knowledge is going out and getting involved in

political discourse in a non-bias environment and having an open mind.

 6Martinez

Works Cited

"Freedom of Speech." ​Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection​, Gale, 2017. ​Opposing

Viewpoints

in

Context,​ ​http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/PC3010999011/OVIC?u=mcc_glendale&sid

=OVIC&xid=4d30d004. Accessed 17 Oct. 2018.

The Times Editorial Board. "Freedom of Speech Must Apply to Hate Speech." ​Opposing

Viewpoints Online Collection​, Gale, 2018. ​Opposing Viewpoints in Context,​

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/VNVBJY937150097/OVIC?u=mcc_glendale&sid=O

VIC&xid=d633045d​ . Accessed 17 Oct. 2018. Originally published as "Hate speech is

loathsome, but trying to silence it is dangerous," ​Los Angeles Times​, 17 Aug. 2017.

Rothman, Noah. "University Students Pose a Greater Threat to Free Speech Than Trump."

Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection,​ Gale, 2018. ​Opposing Viewpoints in Context,​

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/LTMXKM457050348/OVIC?u=mcc_glendale&sid=

OVIC&xid=e3bf612b​ . Accessed 17 Oct. 2018. Originally published as "Who Is the Real

Threat to Free Speech?" ​Commentary,​ 26 Sept. 2017.