Dean Gans – 1st Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and nearly 3 years after, the first amendment was passed. One of the provisions within the First Amendment was the crucial clause declaring that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” This addition to the Constitution was influenced by major Enlightenment principles. Many thinkers of the Enlightenment, like John Locke,  strongly believed that having freedom of speech without infringement of the government would further develop society because without interference from the government social progression would occur because of society being able to openly debate over social injustices.

Then, because of their democratic governmental system, they would be able to implement the outcomes of these debates into the government. The Freedom of speech clause could be seen as responding to their previous rulers Britain. Because of different taxation and America not receiving representation, they felt their government was flawed but they were heavily restricted from advocating those opinions By heavily restricting the government from being able to interfere with criticism toward the government, the framers of the Constitution could have been trying to protect America’s government from the same corruption the British monarchy had. 

The freedom of speech clause is commonly interpreted as allowing speech unless it incites or influences imminent violence, preventing the government from restricting anyone’s speech. Only the government is prohibited from denying freedom of speech. In certain circumstances, such as with private employers or principals, someone may be terminated or expelled due to their speech if there is a valid reason. Additionally, speech extends beyond verbal communication and includes signs, calls, or writings on various mediums, including online platforms. Overall, freedom of speech in the constitution reflects the essential principle of individuals expressing themselves without censorship or repression, serving as a crucial element of democratic governance, individual autonomy, and the protection of human rights.

The interpretation of the freedom of speech clause varies, with ongoing debates regarding the extent of government restrictions. Some scholars argue that the government should not limit speech unless it poses an immediate and evident danger, while others believe that while political speech should be unrestricted, the government can intervene if speech potentially incites danger, spreads misinformation, or harms the country’s reputation. For example, scholars such as Catherine MacKinnon, Jeremy Waldron, and Richard Delgado strongly believe that hate speech is violating people’s natural rights. They argue that although it is less direct, hate speech can cause other violence toward the group being hated which is unconstitutional. Other scholars believe that freedom of speech should be less limited like Geoffrey Stone. Stone, a constitutional law scholar, emphasizes the instrumental value of free speech for democratic governance. He argues that allowing a wide range of speech fosters public deliberation, encourages the discovery of truth, and facilitates social and political progress. Stone believes that even speech that is offensive or disagreeable should generally be protected.

Ultimately both sides are convincing but the more persuasive argument is that freedom of speech should be more limited. The reason freedom of speech should be more limited is because hate speech incites violence. Speech that promotes hatred or incites violence against individuals or groups can have harmful consequences for society. Limiting such speech aims to prevent the propagation of discrimination, hostility, and violence, which can threaten social cohesion and individuals’ well-being. Ultimately there isn’t one right answer, the specific limitations and their scope are often subject to debate, and finding the right balance between free expression and societal interests is an ongoing challenge.

---

Tags: 1st, amendment, dean, dean-gans-1st-amendment, dean-gans-1st-amendment-freedom-of-speech, gans