I. High School
II. The Power of Free Speech
III. Alecsa Pereira
IV. Grade 9
V. 14 years old
VI. Cypress Bay High School
VIII. Mrs. Nathenson
IX. 994 words
The framers of our Constitution provided the citizens of the United States with a
foundation of justice and equality. They had a vision of an independent country with free, equal
citizens. Although a society composed of equal citizens is improbable, achieving a close estimate
is not. The Constitution paved the way for the beginning of a new era, in which citizens would
have a louder voice in society: the era of freedoms. The framers of our Constitution secured our
unalienable rights, granting us freedoms – of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. As
the French General, Napoleon Bonaparte said, “A people which is able to say everything
becomes able to do everything.” However, the use of free speech could be selfishly turned into
hate speech. Free speech is undefined and therefore controversial in the sense of allowing hate
speech in itself.
Free speech can be easily steered towards hate speech. Wars would have never existed
without hate speech as it targets hate at a particular nation or nations. It can be targeted amongst
our own, leaving behind painful, memorable scars. A devastating realization came with the
Holocaust, an illustration of what the power of hate speech can do. Hitler’s persuasive words
filled with his personal beliefs and prejudices were able to manipulate millions to follow the
same belief that he, only one man, had felt so strongly about. The consequences of hate speech
can linger, as it does today with harrowing memories of the Holocaust and present day NeoNazis.
Given that we won our independence with the aid of leaders who were able to inspire us,
we have gained a respect for the power of free speech. However, a perfect nation will never exist
thus we must not underestimate the power of words. We have to take into account the loopholes
and dangers of our lack of restrictions on free speech. The U.S Supreme Court has been
dangerously defending free speech, many times insisting that the First Amendment protects hate
speech until it is regarded as a “true threat” and only then will they “incite imminent lawless
action.” Many Supreme Court cases have sprung up over the last few decades where the
Supreme Court is constantly lenient, letting many cases of hate speech slip by.
In 1969, a case concerning the Klu Klux Klan and the arrest of an Ohio Klansman named
Clarence Brandenburg, was granted a writ of certiorari. Brandenburg promoted a KKK speech
that supported overthrowing the government. The case was overturned in a ruling that has
protected radicals of all political persuasions since then. Justice William Brennan explained,
"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or
proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed
to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
In the case of 1977, the National Socialist Party of America, a Neo-Nazi organization,
intended to march in a small, ethnically Jewish town of Skokie, where 1/6 of the population was
made up of families that had survived the Holocaust. The march that was to take place was
prohibited by county authorities, but the U.S. Supreme Court overruled due to the freedom of
assembly. The city of Chicago permitted the Nazis three permits to march, but in the end, the
Nazis withdrew from their plans.
In both cases, we see possible violence and extreme disrespectfulness towards a racial,
religious, or ethnic group and the government. In the end, they were disregarded because of no
suspected imminent danger. The question is when do we know if imminent danger will strike?
Considering all the possible hate speech occurring with social media alone, imminent danger is
difficult to verify without direct evidence, which leaves us vulnerable to harm at any moment.
Speech inciting action in an unspecified future time is not forbidden and can put the whole
country at risk. Imminent dangers with the possibility of weapons and subsequent injuries are
never certain. We never know if minor actions like speeches or marches can evolve into
something more.
Since America was founded on a system of justice and equality, is it humane or moral for
us to simply just let ethnic, religious, or racial groups feel inferior or threatened because of the
First Amendment? When the framers of our Constitution wrote the First Amendment, we can
infer they were thinking of usage of the power of words for the benefit of the country, not for the
feeling of inferiority of others.
So where do we draw the line? Hate speech can leave lifelong scars upon its recipients,
possibly limiting their opportunities, increasing the risk of conflict with authority or police,
endangering health or safety, and leading them into social isolation, poverty, and depression.
Hate speech is in opposition of our morals and human rights. Who are we to make individuals or
groups feel inferior when we are the same with different beliefs? Free speech, when used for the
detriment of society does not allow equality for all. It allows for prejudice and feelings of
inferiority.
The power of words has been illustrated tremendously throughout history. Hundreds of
independences, reforms, and revolutions would have not been achieved without the persuasive
voices of leaders who made their stand. Our wars would have not been led without the
commanding voices of our generals, our independence not won without the motivation of our
leaders, and our freedoms not fought for without the impact of our inspirations. Free speech is a
basic human right allowing for the benefit of society until it is abused and taken advantage of.
Our lack of restrictions on the First Amendment allows for expression of hate, making racial,
religious, or ethnic groups feel inferior to others, which is inhumane and immoral. Therefore,
free speech used for the wrong purposes is an injustice to our citizens and goes in opposition of
America’s principles founded on justice and equality.