When do you resist Freedom of Expression?
As many of you know, I have recently authored a novel called Newark Minutemen about my Uncle who was a 1930s Jewish boxer who fought German American Nazis for a an organization called the Newark Minutemen formed by the mob and government.
Because of first amendment rights, the governments hands were tied as Hitler actively fostered a satellite party in America. The government approached the mob and asked for help and the Newark Minutemen were deployed as a resistance group.
Should Free expression be interpreted to allow hate groups to prosper? Is it better to have hate groups functioning in the sunlight where decent people can see them, rather than drive them underground? And most importantly, how would you react if you woke up one day, and saw hundreds of Nazis, or members of Al Qaida, or Klansmen, or some other declared enemy of the United States marching proudly.
Where do you draw the line? After all, freedom of speech is the cornerstone of democracy.
Freedom of Speech advocates often limit this right by measuring the harm it causes. In 1919, the American Supreme Court judge Oliver Wendell Holmes pointed out that ‘The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.’
The challenge is that the “harm” argument often spirals out of control. Does harm mean inciting violence? Does it mean slander? Does it mean a threat to our country? Or is it language that raises feelings around hate, violence or suicide?
One answer rests on reading the intention of the language. If the language is creating conditions to think through problems and challenge ourselves to understand other’s viewpoints, then freedom of speech can be justified.
Because of first amendment rights, the governments hands were tied as Hitler actively fostered a satellite party in America. The government approached the mob and asked for help and the Newark Minutemen were deployed as a resistance group.
Should Free expression be interpreted to allow hate groups to prosper? Is it better to have hate groups functioning in the sunlight where decent people can see them, rather than drive them underground? And most importantly, how would you react if you woke up one day, and saw hundreds of Nazis, or members of Al Qaida, or Klansmen, or some other declared enemy of the United States marching proudly.
Where do you draw the line? After all, freedom of speech is the cornerstone of democracy.
Freedom of Speech advocates often limit this right by measuring the harm it causes. In 1919, the American Supreme Court judge Oliver Wendell Holmes pointed out that ‘The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.’
The challenge is that the “harm” argument often spirals out of control. Does harm mean inciting violence? Does it mean slander? Does it mean a threat to our country? Or is it language that raises feelings around hate, violence or suicide?
One answer rests on reading the intention of the language. If the language is creating conditions to think through problems and challenge ourselves to understand other’s viewpoints, then freedom of speech can be justified.
No comments have been added yet.
