To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Marta Daszkiewicz, a young foreign exchange student from Poland, was having lunch with her friend at Bonneville High School in Ogden, Utah in 1996. During their meal, she noticed a Nazi flag displayed in one of the history classrooms. The flag was part of a World War II class and was accompanied by a Japanese flag, newspaper clippings, and other memorabilia. Unfortunately, this display could be seen by all students. Despite Marta's request for its removal, she ultimately decided to write a letter to the local newspaper's editorial section expressing her concerns.
In the letter, she discussed how the swastika still instilled fear due to the presence of neo-Nazis in Germany. Additionally, Marta highlighted that individuals with Polish license plates might face violence from neo-Nazis when entering Germany (Daszkiewicz, personal communication, February 15th 2012).
According to a local newspaper, Karen Miner expressed surprise to learn that Daszkiewicz, whose grandfather died at Auschwitz-Birkenau, believed that the Nazi flag was inappropriate for her classroom wall.
5 (234)
“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”
Miner pointed out that her father, who participated in the D-Day invasion and helped liberate Paris as well as concentration camps where millions of Jews and other ethnic groups were killed by Nazis, also found the flag offensive. As a result of taking a stance, Daszkiewicz faced isolation at school since she was far from her parents and lacked support. She had expected to be in a country that valued freedom of expression, but instead faced opposition when she voiced her opinion. Similarly, Karen Miner, the teacher, believed that her own freedoms were being threatened.
She received support from her school and local school board, but she made it clear that she was not promoting Nazi ideology (Associated Press 1996).
Both the student and the teacher found themselves in a classic disagreement over the timing and necessity of censoring our freedom of speech. It is challenging to ascertain the suitable reaction from either perspective. This situation proved delicate, as the teacher embodied the government, her students, and herself, while the student stood for individuality. Each party could assert that their own right to express was endangered, and both possess a legitimate argument for protecting their rights.
The United States of America highly values and protects the right to freedom of speech as stated in the Constitution. Nonetheless, the contentious matter of speech censorship remains and is expected to persist in debates. The government faces a significant challenge in finding a balance between individual expression and ensuring public well-being and safety. Should laws be enacted and enforced without this equilibrium, it can result in suppression, rebellion, and ultimately societal collapse.
Conflicts often arise within the first amendment, particularly in relation to Freedom of Speech. This right is frequently in conflict with other rights within the 1st amendment and the government's responsibility to protect the nation. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court warned against suppressing despised opinions unless they present an immediate threat that necessitates prompt action to safeguard the country's lawful and pressing objectives (Holmes, Abrams v. United States, 1919).
Justice Holmes contended that although free speech should be safeguarded, there are boundaries to its practice. He notably expressed, "The highest level of protection for free speech would not shield an individual who falsely shouts fire in a theater and causes a panic. [...] The crucial factor in each case is whether the words employed are used under circumstances and possess a character that pose an evident and immediate danger of bringing about the substantial harms that Congress has the authority to prohibit" (Holmes, Schenck v. United States, 1919).
Justice Holmes and Mr. Cohen contend that the negative consequences of speech limitations can surpass their intended advantages. On January 18th, 2012, a notable online demonstration took place where various well-known websites, such as Wikipedia and Reddit, were temporarily deactivated for 24 hours. The purpose was to raise awareness about the opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), which seek to protect copyright holders from possible intellectual property violation.
According to various sources, including Wikipedia and Google, it is widely recognized that these bills went too far in their efforts to combat intellectual property piracy. Consequently, ideas and knowledge were censored. In order to protect speech and expression, engaging in public discourse is necessary.
The United States experienced one of its most devastating attacks ever on September 11th, 2001. As a result, the US government implemented numerous laws and actions, including the controversial Patriot Act. Some argue that this act compromises privacy rights while enhancing security measures. Nevertheless, freedom of speech remains unaffected.
Unlike during World War I, individuals can openly express their opposition to the "war on terror" without fear of severe punishment. However, our First Amendment rights pertaining to speech and association perceived as aiding terrorist groups have significantly diminished since 9/11 compared to before.
Professor David Cole of Georgetown University Law Center explains that the "material support" law gives the executive branch the power to designate any foreign group as a "foreign terrorist organization" if they have used or threatened to use weapons against people or property, and if their activities undermine our national defense, foreign relations, or economic interests (Cole, 2007). According to Cole, both the Bush and Obama administrations interpret this law broadly, as validated by the Supreme Court's rulings in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. This interpretation poses a danger to future speech rights. Cole argues that we should not suppress our freedom of speech and expression out of fear of future attacks. Justice Holmes once said that when one believes they are right, censorship becomes almost irresistible (Sunstein, p. 25). However, while allowing some suppression may initially protect society during challenging times, it could ultimately lead to more complex and destructive problems.
Throughout history, various groups such as religions, governments, schools, and corporations have employed tactics to suppress ideas and expression. However, history has also demonstrated that prolonged restrictions on free speech often result in revolt. Well-known examples of such revolts include the Lutheran and Calvinist Movements in Europe, the American Revolution, and the Brown versus The Board of Education case (Heyman, 2010). A more contemporary and less dramatic illustration of the consequences of censorship is termed "The Streisand Effect" (Greenberg, 2007). This phenomenon derives its name from singer Barbra Streisand's unsuccessful attempt to prevent images of her house from being circulated online. In 2003, Kenneth Adelman published aerial photos as part of an environmental survey.
According to Adelman, the pictures of the singer's Malibu beach house resulted in Streisand suing him. This lawsuit brought a significant increase in visitors to Adelman's website. Although Streisand's case was eventually dismissed, Adelman's photo gained widespread attention after being picked up by the Associated Press and printed in newspapers worldwide (Greenberg, 2007). However, throughout history, it has been shown that a suppressive government cannot maintain itself without adopting a more balanced approach to human rights, including freedom of speech. Tom Stoppard, in his book "Did Plastic People of the Universe topple communism?", narrates how the suppression of Rock and Roll in Czechoslovakia ultimately played a role in the 1989 Velvet Revolution.
In 1976, The Plastic People of the Universe, a psychedelic rock and roll band, faced trial for attempting to organize an unsanctioned music festival despite years of oppression by the Czechoslovakian Communist Party. Alongside them at the trial were various supporters such as playwrights, writers, professors, and other intellectuals from Czechoslovakia. Among these supporters was Vaclav Havel, an avant-garde playwright who had recently met the band members and was deeply impressed by them. After witnessing the trial, Havel left feeling both disgusted with the state of affairs but also determined to bring about change.
The Plastic People were followed by sympathizers who joined local hippies in solidarity, and together they formed a human rights organization. On January 1, 1977, Charter 77 was established with a statement of principles. Havel described the Plastics as champions of freedom of expression, embodying democracy and rock and roll. Charter 77 eventually became a well-known human rights petition that resulted in Havel's imprisonment and paved the way for the "Velvet Revolution" twelve years later (Stoppard, 2009).
The Velvet Revolution (Czech) or Gentle Revolution (Slovak) was a non-violent revolution in Czechoslovakia that occurred from November 17 to December 29, 1989. It was primarily driven by student and popular demonstrations against the one-party rule of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. This revolution led to the collapse of the party's control over the country and the subsequent transition from Czech Stalinism to capitalism. According to Radio Prague (1997), "The Velvet Revolution (Czech) or Gentle Revolution (Slovak) was a non-violent revolution in Czechoslovakia that occurred from November 17 to December 29, 1989. It was primarily driven by student and popular demonstrations against the one-party rule of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. This revolution led to the collapse of the party's control over the country and the subsequent transition from Czech Stalinism to capitalism." In the United States, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution as part of its first amendment. However, this same amendment also safeguards freedom of religion, press, and peaceful assembly.
It is possible for the right protected by the same amendment to sometimes conflict with other rights guaranteed by the constitution. The continuous struggle lies in finding a balance between citizens' rights and government demands. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. suggested in Abrams v. United States (1919), we must remain "Eternally Vigilant" in safeguarding the freedom of speech of others, considering changes in ideas and cultures worldwide. Government faces a significant challenge in balancing individual expression and public safety. Failing to do so could result in jeopardizing our own freedoms, necessitating a fight through words or actions to preserve those rights.
The Delicate Balance of Freedom of Speech. (2016, Oct 14). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/free-speech-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
