"Free Speech Follies" by Stanley Fish began with the sentence, "the modern American version of crying wolf is crying First Amendment" and I agree wholeheartedly. We see it so often in our lives, and also depicted in the media, of people using the argument that their conviction violates their First Amendment rights.
Firstly, as with any legal argument, I think it is absolutely crucial for citizens to understand the totality of the First Amendment and the rights contained within it. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Of course, in this, there is still ongoing debate regarding the specifics of things such as "free speech" and "freedom of press". However, using this as an argument against the law can quickly become an issue for those who truly have had these rights violated.
Some examples of the First Amendment being used as a "cry wolf" in mass media can be found in crime television. I remember hearing the phrase, "read him his rights" so many times that the phrase became meaningless to me. The criminals would scream that the cop was violating his rights as an American citizens, but what were these rights and were they really being violated? There are also countless true stories of people using the phrase, "I would like to argue a violation of my First Amendment rights", in an attempt to validate their behavior. One true story of a "cry the First Amendment" is notoriously referenced in the debate of freedom of speech. Many have heard of the case of the crowded theater. Though it is an analogy used to explain that the First Amendment is not absolute, it is an argument that is used by so many to attempt to validate their actions.
When someone's First Amendment rights are truly violated, the dialogue surrounding it can become heated because these lines are so blurry and because many abuse the fact that they hold these rights as American citizens. One nonpolitical case took place at a high school. The case was as follows: a teen created a parody Instagram account to poke fun at a biology teacher. The First Amendment came into the conversation when a lawsuit was filed by the student's father who claimed, "the teen's speech occurred completely off-campus and failed to cause substantial disruption to the school or to forecast substantial disruption to the school...defendants had no reasonable apprehension of disturbance from students at Freeland Community School District. The vague and overbroad policies and related punishment unlawfully prohibit and chill speech that is protected by the First Amendment".
The bottom line is there is a misunderstanding of the First Amendment because of the vagueness in language. There is a blurry border and many cases involve someone walking on one side or the other. Ultimately, the supreme court is left to make a judgement call in these cases and many people are left wondering whether or not their freedom of speech is truly free.
You've included numerous apt examples of misusing first amendment in defense of an opinion here! The specifics of the First amendment do not often arise; one of the things I noticed in this post was that the First Amendment protects 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble'. This is an highly interpreative phrase and I believe it can highlight the wildly varying responses of police in response to public gatherings. The way that police acted as enforcers at Black Lives Matter protests over the summer, in comparison to law enforcement's passive evasiveness at the storm on the capital, is a clear indication that the first amendment can be both used and abused in order to gain a specific outcome. This post is a great example of ways in which Americans can weaponize their right to free speech while simultaneously attempting to avoid responsibility by crying First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteCan I play devil's advocate a little bit here? Your last example of the teenager's claim by his father reminded me a lot of cancel culture. What happens when the words we say might be offensive but doesn't directly affect our line of work? If a student is free to make a hurtful comment outside the realm of his classroom, is an adult free to maintain an off-color joke they made four years ago? What is the difference? What conditions apply to free speech.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of your article you made note of how the Supreme Court is left to judgement calls on these kinds of cases. This sentence just completely reveals a major flaw in American society and structure. The unfortunate truth is that the things we believe in and follow are often times subjective and blurry. My natural instinct is to call into question the validity of this and challenge the notions of trust in the governmental system that many follow.
ReplyDeleteI focused in on the last example of the high school student specifically. For starters, I do believe that we have free speech--to an extent. Facilities have rights to censor what is said on and (if caught) off the institution. If a person decided to post a hateful comment online, and their school happened to see that, of course there would be some punishment there. I keep thinking of airplanes in comparison for some reason. If someone were to say threatening language outside of the airport online (I'm going to bomb this place) wouldn't that wanted to be taken seriously? I know the comparison of that to a high school student is a stretch, but it is a thought to take into consideration!
ReplyDelete