Freedom Of Speech Essay

The central dilemma for freedom of speech lies within the Constitution itself, in that an individual’s right to expression is simultaneously paired with the larger collective goal of equality. Some argue that with the only way to combat inequality due to hateful speech is with speech itself. However, proponents of enhanced speech regulation argue that freedom of speech allows for maintenance of the status quo of powerful majorities reigning over the weaker minority opinion. Thus, freedom of speech does not support inequality in society because it allows for marginalized groups to express their opinions and counter hateful speech with speech of their own.
Freedom of speech assures that a powerful government does not use speech restrictions

In Texas v. Johnson (1989), Gregory Johnson burned an American flag as part of a political protest, and was convicted of a law that prohibited the desecration of a venerated object. The Court ruled in favor of Johnson, iterating that “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society find the idea it itself offensive or disagreeable” (Justice Brennan qtd. in Fraleigh and Tuman 285). Although Johnson’s expression was greatly offensive to some, his speech must remain protected to ensure that other minority speech will also remain sheltered. When speech restrictions are created to prohibit hurtful minority speech, the restrictions will inevitably be utilized to prohibit valuable minority speech. The case of Collin v. Skokie (1978) demonstrates this ideal well. Frank Collin, a neo-Nazi, wished to hold a Nazi demonstration in the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie. The residents of Skokie called for an injunction of the demonstration that went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the Court “’reluctantly’ concluded that it was the ‘burden’ of Skokie residents to ‘avoid the [swastika]’ if their reaction was likely to be violent” (Strum 101). However, although free speech was upheld in court, when the time for the actual demonstration arrived, “several thousand counterdemonstrators [arrived]….Greeted by spectators with a hail of eggs, beer cans, rocks, and epithets, the Nazis stayed for only ten or fifteen minutes” (Strum 143). The First Amendment worked as intended in this situation: speech, however unpopular, was upheld by the Court as having priority, and a reasoned response of augmented speech by opponents of Collin’s speech caused the demonstration to cease. Rather than stifling the speech