Politics, News & Issues >
Political Issues
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs profanity a protected free speech, free press right?
Results so far:
| Yes | 54% | 74 votes | Total: 136 votes | |
| No | 46% | 62 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesYet what does the freedom of expression protect? It cannot be reasonably be claimed that the Constitution extends its protection to all verbal and non-verbal communication. As Holmes said: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (For reference look up Schenck Vs. United States (1991).) But why not? The reason is that their are no qualifications to the guarantee of freedom of speech in the text of the First Amendment. The key is that the Constitution prohibits laws from "abridging the freedom of speech" and not all laws restricting communication. We will learn how to make that amendment work for us later in the article.
Lets take a quick overview then talk about how profanity fits in as protected free speech.
The Supreme Court has stated that "above all else, the First Amendment means the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." (For reference look up Police Department of Chicago Vs. Mosley (1972).) Nevertheless, the Court has frequently upheld laws imposing content-based restrictions on speech. The main approch used to reconcile such holdings is as follows. Some speech is categorically excluded from the First Amendment or given a lesser degree of protection under the First Amendment. In the case, (Chaplinsky Vs. New Hampshire (1942).) the court stated: "There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of witch has never been thought to raise Constitutional problems." Thus, we do not ask whether particular obscene publications are protected by the First Amendment. Obscenity is not the kind of expression with witch "the freedom of speech" is concerned. That however dose not mean that it is not protected. It just says that "the freedom of speech" will not actively pursue protection yet will not decline it.
The First Amendment is versatile and can be bent both ways. A few of these tactics are, Vagueness and Overbreadth, Prior Restraint, and The Clear and Present Danger. The Clear and Present Danger tactic is mostly relevant to this article. The Clear and Present Danger tactic was used by Justice Holmes in (Schenck Vs. United States (1991).) Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." Thus we now dip into the soft center in this cookie! Determining what is legal and not. "It is a question of proximity and degree." That points to fighting words and other things related. If speech shows violent intent, such as intent to start a riot, or a fight, etc, etc. Then it is not protected. If someone shouts a phrase when he/she knows will start mob or riot that turns on the person who said the phrase, the mob or riot can not be sued by the speaker. However if the speaker said the phrase without the intent or the knowledge that it will start a riot, then he/she is protected.
Profanity is protected by all means as long as it dose not have the intent or purpose for violence. Their is a fine line. Fighting words are defined as - "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite a immediate breach of peace." So can you use profanity? Yes you can however some profanity could be considered "fighting words" when used in certain situations. This is only the surface.
In the end, it is legal to say anything thing you want as long as it dose not show the intent to riot, inflict injury, or breach the peace. I hope my article has helped broaden the line of what is right and wrong. It is my personal option, and the facts of the law.
Learn more about this author, Josh Stringer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Freedom of speech does not imply that one may freely impose ones views upon others in an offensive manner. The purpose of freedom of speech is to enable people to engage in ideas freely expressing ones point of view without offending or impugning upon the rights of others. This means freedom of speech is the opportunity to freely exchange ideas and opinions in a manner consistent with socially recognized parameters and/or barriers.
The very same parameters apply to certain ethnic or racial slurs that literally everyone understands to be politically incorrect as well as socially questionable. Choosing to convey information in a manner designed to offend or hurt others becomes a matter inconsistent with the original point anyways. If an issue is worthy of maintaining ones freedom of speech rights, it becomes an issue worthy of conveying in a politically correct and socially acceptable form.
While certain social orientations consider the use of free speech to encompass several words that by today's standards far surpass the standards of our forefathers, literally everyone understands the social parameters governing our times. As with the judicial branch of government, which identifies a significant part of justice as something in which the public finds fair or equitable, the same thing applies to speech. Vernacular phrases are commensurate with the times. What is acceptable today may not be what was acceptable yesterday or tomorrow however; the priority is that the intent of the amendment is maintained. While some may not always agree with how content is conveyed, the fact that there is a vehicle in which to convey content remains far more important than which terms are used.
This means that when examining items such as freedom of speech, it is not so important as to determine if the words being used are free, but rather, the fact that one remains free to convey the message. Nothing can be more unfortunate than censorship of free thought and ideas due to concerns regarding the context verses the content. Choosing to get hung up in the details really detracts from the entire point.
Stating an idea in a manner designed to hurt or offend others is no better than clubbing your neighbor with a stick and will inevitably mobilize some other form of governing movement completely missing the point of the initial engagement altogether. Therefore, it remains imperative that when choosing to communicate ideas freely the mechanism of choice remains consistent with the comprehension of the times. As times change, so too will comprehension as well as social parameters. What remains important is retaining the freedom of exchanging ideas. It is the content that is critical, not necessarily the context of how it is conveyed.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."George Washington
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."-Soren Kierkegaard
"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."-Plato
Learn more about this author, Darrin A Yarbrough.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political Issues
- Are health care co-ops a better alternative to fully government-sponsored programs?
- Who won the vice presidential debate?
- Should earmarks be banned from the federal budget process?
- Should members of the Bush Administration be prosecuted for torture?
- Should the US continue to honor Columbus Day?
- Is the Military Commissions Act the end of Democracy?
