Free Speech: Death by Denial or Life by Acceptance

“Better a thousand fold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people and entombs the hope of the race.” (Charles Bradlaugh).

Bradlaugh exemplified the traditional American philosophy of free speech with this quote. Since the Bill of Rights was drafted in 1791, Americans have enjoyed, depended upon, and demanded the rights outlined by the First Amendment, specifically the freedom of speech. Yet, the issue of abuse of freedom of speech has become a heavily debated topic, because of events such as the Westboro church protests at military funerals. The question now becomes: “Should Americans relinquish even a portion of our most cherished rights, in order to halt any amount of abuse of those rights?” The answer is a simple yet resounding “no”.  Denying any form of freedom of speech undermines the legal integrity of the law, sets a dangerous precedent for altering our most cherished ideals, silences the voices of minorities, lays doubt on the moral decency of humanity, and eliminates the simplest and most efficient solution to problematic speech.

Since the Bill of Rights went into effect in 1791, the First Amendment has read “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” (ProQuest Staff, 1).  Many exceptions have been made to freedom of speech, including “obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, clear and present danger, and sedition” (ProQuest Staff, 1), in order to protect other rights, such as Thomas Jefferson’s inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, in the case of the Westboro church protests, the Phelps were not violating another group’s rights, they were simply acting upon their right to voice their own opinions. Because their protest remained nonviolent and obeyed all other laws, the Westboro protests exemplify the very definition of freedom of speech, in which a person or group of people voices their opinions on controversial issues, such as homosexuals in the army, to those who would disagree. “The core of the First Amendment has always been that speech can’t be punished or held liable because it is offensive” says Erwin Cherminsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school (Kendall, 2). But the First Amendment is more than that, as well. The United States’ system of freedom of opinion functions because the acceptance of differing opinions gives us the chance to improve our own, and examine both sides of an issue. By offering exceptions for immoral actions, and offensive comments, we challenge these ideals of freedom of speech.

Moreover, forming exceptions to a law that is such an integral part of not only American government, but the American culture, sets a dangerous precedent that has the ability to destabilize our most celebrated laws. Similar to the common saying “If I say yes to one person, I have to say yes to everyone”, if we allow one exception to a rule, we must allow for all plausible exceptions. While the logic behind the Snyder v. Phelps case was sound, it still was based on a plea for a concession to a rule. It is rational for there to be exceptions to freedom of speech such as the Connecticut Penal Law against threatening another person, as this type of speech puts another in harm’s way (Field, 1). However, in the case of Snyder v. Phelps, the issue was over the offensiveness of the content involved in the protest. To excuse actions that are offensive from protection under a law meant to defend possibly offensive opinions, not only destabilizes the law, but changes the very purpose and meaning of the amendment. This can be used as a dangerous precedent to reevaluate the meanings of other nationally-acclaimed laws, such as freedom of press and freedom of religion. Our nation has “chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled” (Snyder v. Phelps), and to make an exception that denies any group the rights to voice their opinions is inhibiting public discussion of the issues at hand. 

In fact, without public debate and freedom of speech in public places, the rights of minority groups, such as African-Americans during the civil rights movement of the 1960’s, would be lost to the voice of the majority. American dedication to freedom of speech was embodied in three Supreme Court cases between 1961 and 1965—Garner v. Louisiana, Edwards v. South Carolina, and Cox v. Louisiana—all of which upheld freedom of speech for the African-American minority (ProQuest Staff, 8). Without this unyielding dedication to the rights the American government established in 1791, the civil righters of the 1960s may never have succeeded. Had an exception been made to freedom of speech because the new opinions were offensive to the Southern way of life, many of us would not have had a chance to meet some of the most influential people in our lives. I, personally, would never have met one of my best friends, simply because freedom of speech wasn’t upheld. Wherever there are unpopular opinions, there is a majority attempting to quiet them, as exemplified by the civil rights struggle in the South. Freedom of speech protects the ability of the quieted minorities to speak out against legal transgressions, and fight for what they know is right. What is popular one decade is not necessarily popular in the next, and by quieting minorities we miss the opportunity to make the social reforms that future generations will admire us for.

In addition, it is not only minorities that become endangered by the suppression of free speech, but the democratic system as a whole. By allowing exceptions of indecency to the First Amendment, we allow a window for parties to silence opposing ideas on the basis of impropriety. It is a concern to the United Nations, as some countries “may use the pretense of restricting hate speech to justify censorship of the opposition” (Magni, 2). It seems an improbability in the United States of America, where the democratic system is so cherished. Yet, in Holland, the Dutch parliament altered an existing law, as to enable the court to prosecute a party leader for “inciting hatred” against Islam (Ali, 1-2). If the denial of freedom of speech, no matter how extreme that speech may be, can debunk the democratic system in a strong European democracy, can we afford to allow freedom of speech to be debased any further? As an acting example of a strong democracy, can we allow ourselves to let other countries lose faith in our cherished governmental system, by letting them watch us bicker over a right we have established and upheld since the creation of our country?

Some argue that without restrictions on free speech our society could descend into the “mobocracies” that many ancient Greek and Roman philosophers feared. When people are allowed unrestrained free speech, society could erupt into constant conflicts and feuds, the likes of which would rival even the Montagues and Capulets. Certainly restrictions on free speech are required to maintain some semblance of order in our society, but it is the responsibility of the morals of the people to determine where the boundaries are, and when these boundaries can be crossed. Similar to Martin Luther King’s assertion that “an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust…is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law” (King, 222), an individual who follows his conscience in deciding the lines he can cross with freedom of speech, upholds the moral integrity of freedom of speech without the need for federal interference.

Additionally, the idea that human morals are not sufficient to maintain social order is no less than insulting to those who strive to improve their communities. While the Westboro church’s actions provide a highly publicized example of a group of people’s lack of empathy, they are not the only people in the world. Those who believe the idea that the human conscience needs federal “policing” to do the right thing highlight such cases of human immorality, while ignoring the heroes who exemplify human empathy and love. People who have lost trust in humanity point to the actions of the Westboro church as evidence for their opinion. Yet they ignore people such as Greg Mortenson, the founder of Pennies for Peace, who has devoted his time to raising money for schools in Afghanistan (Mortenson, 338). They neglect to mention the middle school students in Whitwell, Tennessee that defied Southern stereotypes when they began the Paper Clips Project to raise awareness about the Holocaust (Paper Clips). They overlook people like Pastor Henry Covington, who rebuilt a church in a bad part of Detroit, and opened not only his church but his home to the people on the streets (Albom, 204-206). They turn a blind eye on the people of Denmark, who, during the Holocaust, managed to get every single Jewish citizen out of the country and to safety before the Nazis could send them to concentration camps. They disregard Martin Luther King Jr., and Mohandas K. Gandhi, who fought for the independence of their people. These people exemplify humanity, and it is this humanity that grants us the ability to decide for ourselves where the boundaries of freedom of speech lay and when we can cross them, to determine when offense is inappropriate and when it is not, and to conclude when it is an acceptable time to exercise freedom of speech and when it is better to remain quiet.

Concerns of deteriorating morals are further advanced by concerns about the use of freedom of speech to incite hate crimes. Even the United Nations began an investigation into the use of hate speech to propagandize genocide. Susan Benesch, one of the researchers assigned to the 18-month project and a human rights legal scholar, described hate speech as “a catalyst to spread violence”, and it is true that a Rwandan radio station is suspected in playing a significant role in the Rwandan genocide of 1994 (Magni, 1). Indeed, abuse of freedom of speech has caused violence and problems throughout the world. Yet Benesch also acknowledges “Speech alone cannot bring about genocide” (Magni, 1). While it can encourage violence, it cannot, on its own, instigate it. Violence and genocide are triggered by a combination of stresses. The Holocaust, for example, was the result of a downward spiral for the people of Germany. Their reparations for World War I forced them into a heavy depression, which, coupled with the intense feelings of anger for being blamed for the war, and under the distress of an unstable government, led to a desperate search for a scapegoat. They found their scapegoat in the Jewish community. The violence of World War II was not sparked only by the misuse of freedom of speech; it was simply the final spark that ignited the fuel already provided by prior events.

Yet the most important question the Snyder v. Phelps case poses does not concern the benefits and disadvantages of freedom of speech. The true question remains, how do we counter an abuse of freedom of speech, without denying it to everyone? The truth may seem paradoxical, but it in fact does make sense. To win the fight against an abuse of freedom of speech, we simply need to use our own rights to freedom of speech to establish an opinion that is based on a sense of morality and avoids all impropriety. Simple battles being fought throughout the country to accomplish these means are counter-protests. This January, seniors at Park City High School, in Utah, organized a counter-protest, and were joined by hundreds of Park City residents (Clark, 1). It is nonviolent actions like this that most effectively combat the injustices done to those hurt by offensive comments. Acceptance is what gave the civil rights movement its power, not hate, and it is acceptance that most commendably destroys the intolerance shown by groups such as the Westboro church.

Even when battling genocide, the solution provided by the United Nations is not destroying freedom of speech. The United Nations, in their study on the effects of hate speech, advocated “educating people about manipulative social processes and discrediting hate speech in the eyes of the public” (Magni, 2). Hate speech, by its very nature, has a tendency to provoke resentment in those who hear it. Whether examined rationally or ethically, neither the murder nor the intolerance of an entire people can be justified satisfactorily. Human beings are born with the ability to find the false logic behind these insensitive acts, and it is that ability that we must learn to hone in order to protect both our rights to free speech and the lives of those abused by free speech. Rather than focusing our energy on rewriting free speech to fit our needs, we need only focus on rewriting the perceptions of blatantly chauvinistic speech, for it is the perceptions, not the speech, that causes problems in our society.

All evidence certainly points to the actions of the Westboro church as being indecent and immoral, but, as a nation, we have decided that the morality of a person’s opinion and actions does not play a role in the consequences they receive. As we cannot debase our most fundamental of rights, despite the vulgarity of another’s comments, we are left with only one option. We must “kill them with kindness” for the opposite of hate and intolerance is love and acceptance. And if the denial of free speech “slays the life of the people” then the open acceptance of opinions will allow those same people to flourish. The honest truth is, the Westboro church deserves to be thanked for bringing communities together in a way that emphasizes acceptance, and strengthens our rights to free speech.

Works Cited

Albom, Mitch. "Life of Cass." Have a Little Faith. New York: Hyperion, 2009. 200-207. Print.

Ali, Ayaan Hirsi. "In Holland, Free Speech on Trial." Wall Street Journal (Oct. 2010): A.19. Print.

Clark, Emily, rept. "Counter-protests await Westboro Church at Sundance." ABC News. ABC. 24 Jan. 2011.ABC4.com Salt Lake City. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. <http://www.ABC4.com/>

Ergo Entertainment, and The Johnson Group, prod. Paper Clips. By Joe Fab. Dir. Elliot Berlin, Joe Fab. Perf.Tom Bosley, Linda Hooper, Sandra Roberts, Peter Schroeder, Dagmar Schroeder-Hildebrand, David Smith.Prod. Donny Epstein, Joe Fab, Yeeshai Gross, Matthew Hiltzik, Robert M. Johnson, Elie Landau, AriDaniel Pinchot, Stuart Avi Savitsky, Jeffery Tahler, Bob Weinstein, Harvey Weinstein. Comp. CharlieBarnett. Cine, Michael Marton. Ad. Julia Dixon-Eddy. Sound Dror Gescheit, Skip SoRelle. Miramax, 2004.Film.

Field, Erin. "Connecticut Threatening Laws & Penalties." Advertisement. Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyer.High Steppin' Searches Lawyer Marketing, 2010. Web. 29 Mar. 2011<http://www.ctdefenselawyer.com/ThreateningLaws.htm>

Kendall, Brent. "First Amendment Protects 'Hurtful' Speech, Court Says." Wall Street Journal 3 Mar. 2011: A1.Print.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. from Letter from Birmingham City Jail. 1963. Holt Literature & Language Arts. Ed.Kristine E. Marshall and Laura Mongello. Austin: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2003. 221-222. Print.

Magni, Chiara. "Hate Speech Is Focus of New U.N. Study." Global Information Network. N.p., 23 Nov. 2010.Web. 16 Mar. 2011.

Mortenson, Greg and David Oliver Relin. "Acknowledgements." Afterword. Three Cups of Tea. By Mortenson andRelin. New York: Penguin Books, 2006. 333-338. Print.

ProQuest Staff. "First Amendment Rights Timeline." SIRS Researcher. N.p., 19 Jan. 2011. Web. 16 Mar. 2011.

Snyder v. Phelps. No. 09-751. Supreme Cout of the US. 2 Mar. 2011. PDF file.