“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.”
I’ve been thinking a lot about speech lately.
“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.”
Normally, I probably think about the First Amendment more than my peers, but two recent events have redoubled that thought.
About a week ago, Pat and I went for a morning walk to get coffee. When we were crossing through downtown Spokane we saw a flyer that had been stapled to a lamppost. The heading said, “AMERICANS FOR AMERICA!”
I don’t remember exactly what followed. I wish I had taken a picture of it. In essence the author was advocating for all immigrants to be deported and more government funding be allotted to build Trump’s wall on the US Southern border.
We looked at each other, scoffed, rolled our eyes and proceed to tear the flyer off of the post and throw it in the bin around the corner. I immediately felt weird about it. I felt uneasy. At first I thought it might be because a couple people saw us but later I decided that I felt how I did because of my beliefs about freedom of speech.
Offensive speech, no matter how offending it is, is protected under the Constitution. As a journalist I wish I hadn’t ripped down the flyer because whoever posted it has the right to say what he or she wants about immigrants and what our government money should be spent on. As an activist I’m at peace with my decision.
However if that same person had been on the street corner confronting individuals and telling them to “leave the country or else (insert awful slur here),” his speech would not have been protected as under the fighting words doctrine.
The fighting words doctrine states that, “words by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” are not protected by the First Amendment.
This brings me to the second event that is making me think about the law. This weekend at the restaurant that I work in there were two tables that started antagonizing each other looking for a fight.
“‘Ey man, you gotta problem?,” one of the men leaving said to the seated table.
“Nah man, I ain’t got no problem.”
The first stood by the table and kept shouting at them saying things like, “Well, fuck, I got a problem,” and “C’mon you fucker, let’s fucking go,” like he was trying to get the other guy to get up and fight him.
The confrontation more or less abated when the people at the table refused to engage the group leaving, but there was a palpable tension in the restaurant for about 30 minutes until we finally closed and locked the front doors.
While other than just being scary, (these men were really huge) it made me wonder would what this man said count as words “that have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed,” as stated in the fighting words doctrine? Fighting words are not protected because of the chance they could result in a fight, riot or injury, not because they offend, insult or hurt the feelings of those they are directed at.
I have very little knowledge of the law but, to me, these would have been fighting words. I definitely felt like a fight was imminent and in the context of what happened I don’t believe what he said was protected speech.
The First Amendment protects five freedoms — speech, press, religion, peaceful assembly and petitioning for a redress of grievances. As a journalist, there is a special place in my heart for these five freedoms. I believe in them more than I do any other creed or religion. Being able to speak your mind and share your beliefs, however extreme they may be create dialogue and debate.
I am not arguing in favor of hate speech or fighting words. I believe everyone should use their words to promote Truth and peace, but unfortunately that is not the reality we live in.
And, what is Truth-with-a-capital-T anyway?
The First Amendment is here to protect a debate at the fringes, not the status quo. If an idea is already commonplace there is no more need for it to be protected as it has been accepted within the collective consciousness. We need extreme speech to be protected to continue the marketplace of ideas and allow for all voices, no matter how unpopular, to be heard. Something may make me mad, like the flyer on the light post, or scare me, or offend me, but, these words make me think. Hopefully this will lead to dialogue and a more peaceful society rather than more hate and isolation.