Kevin McGrath
Florida- Republican
Notre Dame High School
Background
Because of the broad wording of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States of America, there is great debate as to how much freedom of speech is
granted to citizens in our country. However, when one person uses their freedom of
speech to threaten the rights of another people, the United States courts system has found
the need to restrict this right, and use censorship laws. While many may argue that the
government does not have the right to censor its citizens, others disagree that laws against
pornography, parental advisory for music, and the ratings systems for television and
movies are absolutely necessary. Not only do some people think that these laws are
absolutely necessary to protect their children, but some people do not want to be exposed
to these categories at all, normally for moral reasons. But, time and time again, our
government has felt that if the speech of one individual could be dangerous, they believe
that they have the right to restrict “hate speech” (Wang 1-3).
In the early twentieth century, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech
could be restricted if it violated the “clear and present danger test,” meaning that it could
not threaten the rights of other people. However, many people are against this, saying
that it is not right to censor the speech of an individual, for any reason at all. This
position is defended by several interest groups, such as the American Civil Liberties
Union, who believe it is an infringement upon civil rights (American 1 of 1). However,
currently the United States government can restrict freedom of speech if it is based upon
race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
Restriction of freedom of speech began during the First World War, with the
Espionage Act in 1917, preventing anyone from speaking against the war. However, in
1919, Charles Schenck, a socialist, wrote letters to fifteen thousand men telling them to
burn their draft cards and not to support the war. Schenck was arrested, and his case was
heard before the Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States. Schecnk believed the
Espionage Act violated his First Amendment rights, but the Supreme Court disagreed,
with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes authorizing his “clear and present danger” test in his
decision, which stated “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in
such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that
they will bring about thesubstantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent” (Schenck
1 of 1). Following the Espionage Act, Congress developed the Sedition Act of 1918, in
which abusive language was illegal against the military, the United States government, or
the flag (Wang 3-5).
However, hate speech does not only occur in times of war in the United States. In
the 1970s, the National Socialist Party of America, better known as the Nazi party,
wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois. They chose this town because 1 of every 6 citizens
of the town was a Holocaust survivor. The people of Skokie did not want the Nazis to
march in their town, but in the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie,
the Nazis were told that they were allowed to march in the town, even though they had a
hateful message. The problem of restricting hate speech is still a problem today, because
there is great dispute over how much the government can restrict the malignant messages
of groups of people (Wang 3).
Position
As a Republican from Florida, I do not believe that people should be prosecuted
for using hate speech. They are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution to
do so, and it would be unfair to censor what exactly they are able to say. Also, as a
Republican, I view the term “hate speech” as one vocally criticizing the government,
much as the Democratic Party has been doing since the beginning of the year 2004,
during the election. But, I believe that while this act by the Democratic Party is wrong,
they are still entitled to do so. I do not believe that any actions should be taken against
those who use hate speech, and that any form of legislation restricting hate speech should
be declared unconstitutional. However, I do believe that burning the flag should be
considered a federal crime, because much like the Democrats are doing, it is unfair to
hate one’s country.
WORKS CITED
American Civil Liberties Union. No ed. No date. American Civil Liberties Union. 8
March 2007. <http://aclu.org>
Constitution of the United States of America. No ed. No date. Cornell Law School. 28
Feb 2007.
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendme
ntix>.
Hate Speech. Ed. Ying Wang. Feb 2007. Rutgers University Model Congress. 28
February 2007. <idia.net>.
Schenck v. United States. No ed. No date. The Oyez Project. 9 March 2007.
<http://www.oyez.org/cases/case?case=1901-1939/1918/1918_437>