Constitutional Issues & the Scope & Character of U.S. Government: Free Speech

Introduction

Freedom of speech is one of the main constitutional rights granted to American citizens. Freedom of speech contributes to the protection of the United States democracy and contributes to the diversity of views and pluralism which allows free expression of ideas and diversity of views. However, the emergence of threats to the national security, such as international terrorism, creates conditions for possible limitations of freedom of speech on the pretext of struggling against terrorism and other threats to the public safety in the United States. The government attempts to suppress radical claims made by people , who disagree with current policies or who have radical ideas, but any attempt to suppress their right to express their ideas freely inevitably comes into clashes with the free speech right granted to Americans by the US Constitution and, more specifically, by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The US Constitution protects citizens from natural attempts of the government to restrict freedom of speech which is inconvenient for the government as a powerful tool that may influence the public opinion. Such tool can also change outcomes of elections and the position of officials and politicians as well as influence their career. This is why the government is trying to impose limitations on the freedom of speech using national security concerns. However, the US Constitution deprives the government of an opportunity to use political reasons to suppress freedom of speech. In such a situation, cases, when one may be deprived of the right of free speech or limited in this right are quite few. On the other hand, the unlimited use of free speech right raises the problem of using this right to promote radical, extremist ideas which may be harmful for the public. At this point, it is important to distinguish criticism of policies conducted by the government from extremist claims which impose the public to danger through claims to extremist actions. The latter have to be restricted, in spite of the free speech right. This is why, today, free speech is the fundamental civil right granted to Americans by the United States Constitution which is essential for the protection of civil liberties, but the federal government confronts numerous threats which raise the problem of the restriction of free speech right at the federal level that is absolutely unacceptable with regard to the role free speech plays in United States democracy.

1. Free speech and federalism

Free speech is maintained and protected nationwide and the federal government is responsible for the protection of this fundamental constitutional right nationwide. The US Constitution protects the free speech right and this right is one of the fundamental civil rights of Americans. The government has to respect the free speech right and provide Americans with opportunities to express their ideas freely and openly. According to Ivers (2013), “Political speech receives the greatest protection under the First Amendment… Speech (or expressive conduct) considered offensive, hateful, profane, or defamatory is not always entitled to constitutional protection because, in the Court’s analysis, it is often unrelated to the core values of the First Amendment” (section 7.5). Therefore, the free speech has political implications above all because this right means that people are free to express their views and diverse ideas, even if they contradict to current policies or if they are inconvenient for some politicians, including the government itself. The free speech right creates opportunities for the political diversity and pluralism of views, beliefs and ideas which are available to the public and it is the public, i.e. average Americans who decide which ideas to support or not. The free speech as a right granted by the US Constitution requires the federal government to take the full responsibility for the observation and protection of this right. The free speech right is applicable nationwide and any citizen of the US has this right protected at the federal level.

At the same time, under the court ruling in case of Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) states have the right to grant citizens broader rights than granted by the US Constitution as long as those rights do not abuse or contradict to other rights granted by the US Constitution. This case is pivotal for the free speech right and its applicability at the federal and state level. This case grants states with an opportunity to expand the free speech right granted to Americans at the federal level. States can grant broader free speech right as long as such expansion of the free speech right do not abuse other rights granted by the US Constitution and federal laws. In this regard, federal laws concerning the free speech right are a foundation on the ground of which states can build up their legislation concerning free speech but they should keep in mind that their legal initiatives concerning the free speech right should comply with federal legal norms and do not abuse other rights of Americans.

However, in light of new, emerging threats to the public safety and national security of the US, the federal government views free speech as one of potential ways of the emergence of threats to the national security at the federal level because terrorist organizations and foreign powers may use fee speech right to manipulate with the public opinion or misuse media, such as social networks for their purposes. New threats urge claims to change current policies and laws concerning the free speech right to prevent terrorist and other threats which may compromise the US national security. According to Irons (1999), free speech bears certain threats to the United States national security because contemporary media have a considerable impact on the public opinion but the content and messages conveyed through media are not always true and are misleading (p. 72). Misleading information can contribute to manipulations with the public opinion to the extent that changes in the public opinion or manipulation with the public opinion can become a tool used by terrorist organizations, extremist organizations, or foreign powers to compromise the US national security and to undermine the stability within the US. In such a context, claims to impose restrictions of the free speech right gain many supporters.

On the other hand, any restriction of the free speech right bears multiple threats as does any restriction of civil rights granted to citizens by the US Constitution. Clarke (2002) warns against risks associated with the suppression of free speech through the enhancement of regulations over free speech or online restrictions on free speech through a sort of censorship, because such measures destroy the fundamental constitutional right of Americans (p. 45). Censorship raises the threat of the increasing government control over media and public opinion. Censorship is the effective tool to regulate the public opinion to the extent that censorship may become a tool that helps the authorities to shape and condition the public opinion to meet their needs.      

Moreover, the limitation of free speech at the federal level also raises the problem or risk of the limitation of the free speech right at the state level because states have to comply with federal laws and norms. If their free speech laws come into conflict or contradict to federal laws, those legal norms concerning free speech should be eliminated, Therefore, if the federal government launches the massive campaign to restrict the free speech right and legislators support that initiative and introduce consistent legal changes at the federal level, states are likely to impose limitations on the free speech right to comply with federal norms, although states will still have an opportunity to grant citizens broader rights within legal limits allowed by the US Constitution and court precedents, such as the case of the Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).

This evidence proves that federalism maintains free speech as the constitutional right but many threats urge the federal government to try regulations of that right, especially online. Hence, federal policy makers have to coordinate their policies with the US Constitution and national security concerns. At the same time, state law and policy makers also play a considerable part in the free speech right and its enforcement at the state level.

2. Free speech and civil rights

The right that Americans have to free speech is one of the fundamental constitutional rights and the introduction of any changes in free speech laws and regulations often evokes heated debates because such laws and regulations may potentially challenge the constitutional right of Americans. The free speech right is granted by the First Amendment to the US Constitution which is very clear on the right of Americans to express their ideas freely and openly. The protection of this right is very important because, in legal terms, free speech means the possibility to express ideas openly and publicly without a risk of any legal action out of political or other concerns. In other words, free speech cannot be restricted just because ideas expressed by Americans publicly are inconvenient for the federal government, for example, or some politicians. This right is granted by the US Constitution and the government and other stakeholders have to comply with free speech norms granted by the First Amendment.

Free speech rules set the framework for the free manifestation of ideas and views of all citizens on important issues in political, economic, social, cultural and other fields. In such a way, the free speech right contributes to the diversity of views and pluralism which is essential for sharing diverse ideas and dialogue between people, between people and the government, between people and other organizations at all levels, from the federal to the local one. Americans can exercise their right to express their ideas on any issue and that right creates conditions for the public debate of socially important issues. An important issue cannot occur without the public debate and the public opinion is, to a significant extent, shaped due to the free speech right (Doomen, 2014). The public debate and the free speech right lead to the diversity of ideas expressed on a socially significant issue, while each citizens decides for him-/herself which side to take in the debate. In such a way, the public opinion is formed. Without free speech, Americans would have been deprived of an opportunity to conduct the public debate effectively because only certain ideas could have been expressed freely.

The introduction of free speech regulations may raise the problem of the conflict with the United States Constitution because new regulations that may aim at the suppression of terrorist activities, for example, may also suppress the free speech right of American citizens. According to Ten & Irene (2010), they argue that the United States Constitution grants Americans with the free speech right but emerging threats, such as the interference of foreign powers in the United States Presidential elections or terrorist activities, urge the government to introduce new regulations to control media in a way to suppress threats, but such regulations may need amendments to the United States Constitution (p. 2). Such threats to the national security are also threats to the free speech right because free speech is used to spread ideas that trigger radicalization and intervene into regular socio-political processes within the US. Such misuse of the free speech right by terrorist organizations, extremists, or foreign powers may threaten to the US national security and interests that lead to claims and attempts to impose restrictions on the free speech right.

However, the free speech right is the civil right protected by the US Constitution. Doomen, (2014) insist that the United States Constitution is very clear on free speech right, which new regulations have to comply with, while their introduction may although still compromise Constitutional rights of American citizens (p. 43). This means that the introduction of new free speech regulations may need Constitutional changes. The process of changes to the US Constitution is very complicated. This is why the free speech right still holds a strong position and remains under the protection of the US Constitution.

At the same time, the government cannot suppress the freedom of speech because this is the fundamental constitutional right, while people still can openly speak about their views, even if they urge people to action. At this point, it is possible to refer to the case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio (1969). According to the court’s ruling in the case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio (1969), the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (Brandenburg vs. Ohio 1969). Hence, new free speech regulations affect civil rights of Americans and involve issues related to Constitutional rights of Americans. This is why any changes concerning free speech regulations allow Americans to challenge any laws and government policies at all levels and refer to the US Constitution and the US judicial branch of power to keep the government and legislators within the Constitutional field, if they go too far in their suppression of the free speech right.

3. Free speech and civil liberties

Any changes to the free speech right and related regulations involve implications for civil liberties because Americans view free speech as an essential part of their civil liberties. The freedom of Americans to express their ideas freely is an integral part of their worldview and the civil liberty granted to them by the US Constitution and available to them at the federal and state level. Any restrictions of the free speech right inevitably raise the problem of the violation of civil liberties of Americans. If they cannot express their ideas freely, they cannot exercise other civil liberties they have, for example, freedom of religion or expression.

In this regard, the introduction of new regulations concerning media or free speech could enhance the public safety but also allow Americans to protect their basic civil liberties which they may exercise in a safe environment. Such concerns with the public safety are the major drivers of new regulations concerning free speech. Proponents of such regulations (Wragg, 2015) argue that Americans cannot exercise their civil liberties, when they are exposed to the risk of terror attacks or when they are vulnerable to massive manipulations with the public opinion exercised through the free speech right. In such a way, the introduction of new regulations can help to enhance the national security and enhance opportunities for Americans to exercise their civil liberties.

However, new free speech regulations may challenge civil liberties concerning the right of Americans to express their ideas and views publicly and freely. New regulations can raise difficulties with the free expression of ideas and their sharing online or through other media. In such a way, the enhancement of some civil liberties at cost of the limitation of others is highly controversial. According to Wragg (2015), he argues that free speech regulations may challenge civil liberties granted by the United States Constitution as they may limit the right to express one’s ideas freely since new regulations lead to the restriction of free speech for the sake of the enhancement of public safety (p. 11). But, according to McDonald (2015), he admits that public safety may become the major driver to impose limitations on free speech and, therefore, on civil rights and liberties granted by the United States Constitution (p. 115). This means that new free speech regulations may threaten civil liberties of Americans. The core of the debate concerns the limitation of civil liberties in face of threats to the public safety.

At the same time, legal precedents such as the case of Yates vs. United States (1957) protect Americans from the limitation of their civil liberties and free speech right because the court ruled that radical speech may be banned only if they expose the public to danger (Yates vs. United States, 1957). To put it more precisely, the case ruled that the First Amendment to the US Constitution protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a “clear and present danger” (Yates vs. United States, 1957). This case is particularly important in light of the current debate over possible limitations of the free speech right and possible restriction of civil liberties that will follow after new regulations are enacted. This case gives a very clear definition, when the free speech right may be limited. This case made it clear that civil liberties like free speech may face restrictions only if they expose the public to danger.

Therefore, the introduction of new free speech regulations may raise civil liberties issues because they may potentially restrict or change civil liberties granted by the United States Constitution. However, the necessity to comply new regulations concerning free speech with the US Constitution gives Americans an opportunity to challenge any regulation which they believe intervenes in their civil liberties and free speech right. The justice system is the tool that can resolve the dispute between citizens and the government on the free speech right and related civil liberties. Any changes in this field are difficult, even if they are driven by national security concerns, but, even when new regulations are enacted, they will still face the risk of new trials and court ruling which may change their impact on the free speech right and civil liberties of Americans.

Conclusion

The introduction of new free speech regulations by the federal government will inevitably confront issues concerning civil rights and liberties, which new regulations have to address and comply with to avoid conflicts and resistance that can make new regulations ineffective. Free speech is maintained and protected nationwide and the federal government is responsible for the protection of this fundamental constitutional right nationwide. However, states can grant broader free speech right as long as such expansion of the free speech right do not abuse other rights granted by the US Constitution and federal laws. In this regard, federal laws concerning the free speech right are a foundation on the ground of which states can build up their legislation concerning free speech but they should keep in mind that their legal initiatives concerning the free speech right should comply with federal legal norms and do not abuse other rights of Americans. The free speech right is granted by the First Amendment to the US Constitution which is very clear on the right of Americans to express their ideas freely and openly. However, new threats to the national security and public safety urge attempts to limit the free speech right and related civil liberties which Americans cannot exercise, if their free speech right is limited, for example, the freedom of expression or freedom of religion. The restriction or regulation of free speech inevitably confronts the US Constitution which allows Americans to disagree and to reject government policies or new laws at any level, federal or state one, if those regulations violate their Constitutional rights.

References

Brandenburg vs. Ohio (1969)Clarke, I. (2002). Protecting Free Expression Online with Freenet, Internet Computing, IEEE, 40–49.

Doomen, J. (2014). Freedom and equality in a liberal democratic state. Bruylant: Routledge. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu

Irons, P. (1999). A people’s history of the supreme court New York: Penguin. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu

Ivers, G. (2013). Constitutional law: An introduction. [Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

McDonald, F. (2015). Understanding the us constitution. New York: Routledge.Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).

Ten, C. and Irene, M. (2010). Speech, truth, and freedom: An examination of john stuart mill’s and justice oliver wendell holmes’s free speech defenses, Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 22 (1), Article 2. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu

Wragg, P. (2015). Free speech rights at work: Resolving the differences between practice and liberal principle, Industrial Law Journal, 44 (1), 11.Yates vs. United States (1957).

The terms offer and acceptance. (2016, May 17). Retrieved from

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016.

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]

freeessays.club (2016) The terms offer and acceptance [Online].
Available at:

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]

"The terms offer and acceptance." freeessays.club, 17 May 2016

[Accessed: March 19, 2024]
close
Haven't found the right essay?
Get an expert to write you the one you need!
print

Professional writers and researchers

quotes

Sources and citation are provided

clock

3 hour delivery

person