Today’s blog
Lynn Murphy Mark
Free speech
It’s all over the news. 45 will be granted access to “Meta”, aka Facebook, and Instagram after a two year ban from these platforms. Back in November 2022, Elon Musk granted him access to Twitter again. That figures.
I am conflicted about this although I’m sure 45 doesn’t give a damn about my opinion. Our founding fathers felt strongly enough about freedom of speech to protect it in the first amendment to our Constitution. In principle, I believe everyone should have the right to voice their beliefs – and I have the right to disagree both in speech and in writing. So, when 45 uses social media to spread patently untrue statements, who am I to take issue?
Now I’m curious enough to wonder if there are restrictions to free speech passed down through our court system? Sure enough, there is a website, www.uscourts.gov, that answers my question. On this website are examples of cases involving free speech as defined by our Supreme Court in the 1900’s.
Maybe you already know this, but I found these decisions helpful to my understanding of the ways in which speech is protected and defined by SCOTUS. For example, we have the right “to use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.” (Cohen v. California, 1971). But, we do not have the right to “incite imminent lawless action.” (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969). Right away I realize how these two decisions complicated the January 6th Committee work of determining if 45 is responsible for the despicable actions of that day.
Here I am, writing a blog about free speech, objecting to 45’s rhetoric when he is allowed access to social media. I can only conclude that it is because I just don’t like the man, or his opinions. I suppose I have the right to disagree with everything that he stands for. But I don’t have the right to want to restrict his ability to verbalize his beliefs. And, I can always change the station when his ugly mug takes up the screen – but not before uttering a few expletives.
According to SCOTUS, there are at least three cases in which students are denied the right to “print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of school administration”, or to “make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event”, or to “advocate illegal drug use at a school sponsored event”. But apparently members of Congress can publish hateful rhetoric and videos showing violence against fellow members of Congress, as Paul Gosar did against AOC. His only repercussion was to lose a seat on committees. The same goes for Marjorie Taylor Greene and her ridiculous theories about “Jewish space lasers” and her denial of the Holocaust.
Yes. I am confused about the real meaning of free speech. Hate speech worries me because it’s so easily turned into hateful actions and people lose their lives because of it. Patent untruths become conspiracy “facts”, and people act on these “facts” to the detriment of the public good. Witness the COVID mask and vaccine deniers who spread the virus as widely as they spread their falsehoods about this deadly pandemic.
Well, these are my thoughts on this winter morning. I’d be interested in knowing how others feel about the meaning of free speech, and our right to use words that cause dissension among us. I hope you’ll “speak up”!