By: Zack Valdman Freedom of speech, the lynchpin of American discourse, is seeing less and less support from Millennials. This worrisome trend arises from recent polls such as Pew Research in 2015, showing that 40% of millennials believe that the government should be able to prevent people from statements that are offensive to minority groups. To be clear, this column does not in any way support speech that is offensive to minorities; this type of speech is abhorrent and absolutely should not be tolerated by American society. However, there is a fine line between not tolerating speech from a cultural and societal perspective and believing that the government should be able to prosecute individuals who engage in such speech. 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.” As repugnant and repulsive as some speech is, the courts have interpreted the first amendment to protect all forms of speech that are not calls to violence, defamation, perjury, true threats, etc. Speech that is offensive, however, is not an exception to the first amendment. The Court has even interpreted burning the U.S. flag a form of symbolic speech protected by the first amendment. Burning the flag is an extremely controversial act and offensive to many, but the First Amendment of the Constitution protects it. The way the courts have interpreted the First Amendment, neither flag burners nor those who utter speech offensive to minorities can be prosecuted under the law. Now that is not to say there cannot be other ramifications for these individuals, as it is well within the law for employers to fire them and society to ostracize them. But this speech is considered protected by the Constitution of the United States, and the government should not be able to prevent people from uttering these statements by depriving them of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness in imprisonment. Exemplifying the dangers of a country without a First Amendment that protects freedom of speech is Poland. According to The Human Rights Watch, in January, the Polish government created a law that made it a crime punishable by up to three years in prison to claim that Poland was either responsible for or even participated in crimes committed by the Nazis during World War II. This law essentially criminalizes historical conversation, and rather than fostering a milieu that encourages debate on Poland’s role in the Holocaust, seeks to whitewash history. The law makes using the term “Polish death camp” illegal, and will enable the state body “tasked with establishing an official historical narrative and prosecuting Nazi and Communist-era crimes…to claim compensation from anyone “damaging the reputation” of Poland.” (Human Rights Watch). Under the guise that this term “falsifies Polish history” and “slanders” Poles, the government seeks to ban phrasing that makes it seem as though Poland was responsible for the Holocaust. While the camps were indeed set up and run by Germans on Polish soil, this law restricts freedom of speech and academic research, and serves to revise history by concealing Poland’s part in the Holocaust. Laws such as these only serve to exemplify the need for any country to protect freedom of speech, regardless of whether it is perceived as offensive by some or not. Without freedom of speech, any country’s government, even America, could pass the same draconian law. Sources: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/ https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/10/polands-twisted-holocaust-law https://www.ft.com/content/ccaf3370-0da7-11e8-8eb7-42f857ea9f09 https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/poland-holocaust-law/552842/
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
March 2018
Categories |