Freedom of Speech: A Constitutional Right to Empower the People - Essay Sample

Introduction

Freedom of speech is provided for in the Bill of Rights in the constitution, and therefore special attention should be given to the need for freedom, to what extent it can be used, and how to promote the existence of free speech in the country. The freedom of expression, as provided by the constitution, offers the people in the society the opportunity to support all the other fundamental rights provided for in the constitution. Without freedom of speech, it would be impossible to experience and enjoy the other provisions of the constitution (Bollinger and Stone, 1). Throughout history, the history-altering events that occurred were a result of the speech, and this shows that freedom of speech is the first step towards the achievement of change in society. However, the idea of free speech does entail not only the issues concerned with speaking but also the ability to listen to others and respect their opinions.

It is also through free speech that society can challenge bigoted opinions and silence the biased practices that have been going on in society. Through the freedom of speech, society can contest and challenge the practices that they feel to be punitive and those that make them suffer from the lack of access to their basic rights. Therefore, free speech should be used not for personal gains, but in pursuit of societal prosperity in the social, economic, and cultural fronts. However, there is a need for the people in pursuit of freedoms and liberties through the use of free speech as provided for in the constitution to also recognize the need for the rights of others to express themselves freely. It is for this reason that this paper will address the importance of freedom of speech, justifications to the right of free speech as provided for in the constitution and the limits to which one can practice these rights.

Importance of Freedom of Expression

First, as explained earlier, freedom of expression is important since it is a foundation for other rights. Without freedom of expression, it would be impossible for other rights to be founded. Therefore the freedom of expression should be given credit as the avenue through which the other rights came into being. All the other rights intersect with the freedom of expression, and therefore this shows that without the freedom of expression, the other rights would be limited in function. Secondly, it is only when there is freedom of expression that the public can be informed of the issues going on around them (Rintel, 1). For example, it would be useless if there is information to be shared, and there are censure laws that do not allow for the spread of information. If the conditions in a country mute the spread of information and do not grant the freedom of expression, then it would be difficult for the other rights to be implemented, such as the freedom of the free press, which also heavily relies on the freedom of expression to carry out its duties.

It is only when the public is informed that the nation can be described to have achieved a state of democracy. Democracy depends on the existence of freedoms, and the highest of the freedoms is the freedom to express oneself since they may end up creating problems with the information that they may spread. However, the information spread should be important for public interest and should cover the needs of the society, and not only ones or have ulterior motives for their spread. Furthermore, it is only when people can express themselves during election campaigns that the electorate can make informed decisions on the candidates to select (Rintel, 1). If the people are not allowed to seek clarification from the candidates during debates and campaigns, then they will make uninformed decisions on the candidates of their preference, and in the process lead to mismanagement of the country and the resources that the country has.

Moreover, it is only through an independent press that the powerful public interests of the public can be accounted for. When there is freedom of expression in a country, then the media can undertake investigative features that seek to bring the interests of the public into the light, and if there was a lack of accountability, ensure that the people responsible for the mismanagement are brought to justice. It is only through the freedom of expression that the rights of minority groups in a country can be heard. Freedom of expression allows for the minority groups in society to be given an equal platform for them to be heard. Therefore, there are no favorites when it comes to reporting and addressing the issues of public interest where a small fraction of the public is affected (Rintel, 1). Finally, the freedom of expression protects more than just the freedom of the free press but other activities in society that require the freedom of expression. For example, the freedom of using art in ways that may seem unacceptable to some people is also allowed for in the freedom of expression, as well as academic research, which requires one to undertake rigorous forms of self-expression which can only be made possible through the acceptance of freedom of expression.

Justifications to the Rights of Freedom of Free Speech

Democratic Participation as a Justification of the Freedom of Speech

Freedom of expression is among the main reasons why the constitution was formulated. Therefore the provision of democratic participation can be used to explain the need for freedom of speech in society. The framers made it known that the constitution should in no way make any laws that will end up affecting the balance given to the freedom of expression, since if the balance is tipped, then the other rights are also at risk of being violated too. The presence of democracy in any given country is represented by the existence of a free press and the freedom of expression by the people in the country since freedom of speech gives the people concerned the opportunity to be heard even when the issues addressed are a source of discomfort to the parties that they are addressed to (Liang, 8). There is also the need to inform the public of what is happening in the country as a basic requirement of the freedom of expression, whereby the people concerned need to have information on the issues affecting them and their society despite the expected reactions from the societies in question. Therefore, if democracy is in existence in a country, then the freedom of expression is justified, and the room is made for it to exist in the said community.

Autonomy as a Justification of the Freedom of Speech

Autonomy is the achievement of a self-governance in a nation. When a country is a republic serving only its people’s interests, it is possible for the freedom of expression to be allowed and its existence facilitated. It is only through the autonomy in a government that the conditions which allow for the existence of free speech can be set up. For example, through autonomy, it is possible to set up provisions in the constitution to allow for the practice of freedom of speech and in the process achieve the other provisions of the constitution such as the freedom of the free press and freedom to protest whenever one feels that the laws in existence do not represent them as well as they would have wanted in other situations (Dworkin, 1). It would be impossible for countries under colonialism to have achieved the point of freedom of expression since the colonizers’ main aim was to ensure that the people in the colonies were denied the right to access information or spread information that they felt could cause problems to the existence of their rule in the land. Therefore the first characteristic of a country under colonialism or dictatorship is the censorship of all avenues of expression and press so that the information shared in the areas is limited and does not show the power in charge in a bad light.

Limitations of the Freedom of Expression

There are instances when the freedom of expression is limited from being used in a given society. For example, the freedom of expression is limited when people are spreading propaganda in the country, hence leading to unnecessary fear and tension in the country. Therefore, if one undertakes activities that lead to the misleading of the public, their right to freedom of expression will be limited. The limitations also occur when the freedom of expression leads to defamation and slandering of people without credible evidence being provided on the same. When one destroys the reputation of others, their right to expression will be removed since the continued justification of their rights will lead to the harm of others (Alsubaie, 1). The rights and freedom of expression should also be enjoyed within certain limits, whereby the freedoms are to be enjoyed with others in mind. Therefore, despite the freedom of expression being allowed for, it is necessary that society recognizes the existence of other people who have different opinions and attitudes and that this should not lead to disagreements in the society.

Cases when the Freedom of Expression were Limited

In Colin V Smith, the leader of The National Socialist Party of America, Frank Colin, described the party as a Nazi party which followed the practices of the Nazi, with one instance being their intention to march to the village of Skokie which was home to many Holocaust survivors (Choper et al., 2). Therefore the government had to limit their freedom of expression and movement too since their expression and movement were bound to cause harm to others, bring friction and misunderstanding in the society and cause tension between a societies that had already been subjected to worse situations by people with Nazi beliefs. The court refused their argument that they had the freedom of expression and movement, stating that the First Amendment is limited if the messages being spread involve spreading hate speech to other people and causing tension through their messages.

Another instance is the case of RAV V, the City of St Paul. In the case, a teenager, who was only addressed as RAV accompanied by other teenagers assembled and taped together pieces of wood so that they formed crosses, and then burned them in the lawn of an African American home. This action violated the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, which stated that no object representing a hate crime towards a group is allowed (Baird and Rodenbaum, 3). However, the teenager’s lawyers asked that the charges be thrown out based on the law being too broad and based on content, making it invalid in the case. The court of St. Paul did not accept the motion to dismiss. However, an appeal in The Supreme Court of Minnesota decided that the ordinance was only set to govern against words and not actions, setting the teenager free.

Works Cited

Alsubaie, Saleh. The Limitations of Freedom of Expression in Theory and Practice (Between the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Egyptian Law). Diss. University of Stirling, 2019.

Baird, R. M., & Rosenbaum, S. E. (1992). Bigotry, Prejudice, and Hatred: Definitions, Causes, and Solutions. Contemporary Issues Series. Prometheus Books, 700 East Amherst Street, Buffalo, NY 14215. Retrieved from https://oatd.org/oatd/record?record=handle\:1893\%2F30387

Baird, Robert M., and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, eds. Pornography: private right or public menace?. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus books, 1991. Class material provided

Bollinger, Lee C., and Geoffrey R. Stone, eds. Eternally Vigilant: Free Speech in the Modern Era. University of Chicago Press, 2018. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0735275112467012

Choper, Jesse H., et al. "Constitutional Law–Leading Cases, 2011 Edition." (2011).