Chalk Talk: Does the 1st Amendment protect the right amount of speech?
Below is the essay and photo results of the first Breaking the Bennington Bubble: Chalk Talk. If you didn't get a chance to write your response, feel free to comment here!
I’m not looking to write op-ed pieces that are presenting one-sided arguments. There’s nothing wrong with arguing one side of a debate— the structure of a debate is two sides arguing to make their point. What I want to do though is establish a clear idea of what the debate is, as not much will come from presenting one side of a debate without context. I’m looking to highlight the tension within the debate and the merits to each argument. I’m curious as to why it feels so common to say one idea and then believe a contradicting idea. For example, I believe that censorship is never justified but then I agree with others that someone should be canceled or deplatformed because I find their beliefs offensive. How can I reconcile that? Which bullet do I bite? Am I truly against all censorship or just my own? I hope to explore these contradictions more with you throughout the entire Breaking the Bennington Bubble Project.
In order to investigate the nuances of a debate, I will have to explain a fair amount of theory as well as the foundations of the debate in question. This is the other reason I’m not looking to write opinion pieces; I want to provide access to information. My goal is education but I will not claim to be presenting unbiased facts. The information I share has been intentionally selected because I personally believe that it is important, thought-provoking, and worthy of sharing widely.
To begin, I want to establish some definitions. The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, and if one protects the other then they are not necessarily the same. The First Amendment protects five different rights from government interference; the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. However, there are notable exceptions to protected speech. True threats, intimidation, and incitement of illegal conduct are excluded from First Amendment protections. Additionally, on college campuses Title IX and Title VI make discriminatory harassment illegal and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. These are significant laws as private universities are not legally required to protect constitutional rights despite generally promising them to students, but if they accept government funding, they must abide by Title IX and Title VI. With the same focus on targeted attacks, defamation, libel, and/or slander are all illegal as it is false information that harms one’s reputation. Now, if the alleged defamation is proven to be true, then it’s not actually defamation! The First Amendment also protects the right to hear, meaning the “heckler’s veto” is not protected speech; shouting down speakers and removing posters of protected speech is not free speech but censorship and vandalism. Along similar lines, civil disobedience is often unprotected speech as protesting action is taken with the willingness to accept punishment; Henry Thoreau famously refused to pay his taxes to protest slavery and the Mexican-American War, leading to his essay, “Civil Disobedience.” During the Vietnam War, thousands of men burned their draft cards as an act of civil disobedience and the Supreme Court case United States v. O’Brien determined that the criminal prohibition against draft-card burning did not violate First Amendment rights. With this in mind, it’s clearly important to know whether your speech is protected by the First Amendment.
I find this information relevant to share because the First Amendment protects many forms of speech—there are no laws against “hate speech” in the United States— but there are still valuable exceptions based on principles of open, civil discourse and the pursuit of truth.
Does the First Amendment protect the right amount of speech?
Do you believe it should protect more or less types of speech?