In the previous post “Social Needs versus Individual Rights in Legal Realism,” the author makes a good point: when is it acceptable for the government to waive rights, especially freedom of speech and press?
Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of American Freedom. The very idea of the government hushing people, waiving someone’s right to free speech, makes me cringe. On the other hand, I would argue that there are some cases when it would be necessary for the government to suppress certain things, even if it contradicts the constitutional right of free speech.
For example, the CIA leak scandal in 2003 which revealed the identity of a CIA operative in a newspaper column. Although this situation specifically refers to the constitutional right of free press, I find it relevant because it runs hand-in-hand with free speech. In this case I find it necessary for the government to prevent this kind of information from being released to the public. The publication of this article endangered the CIA operative’s life and potentially her families, after all, the operative probably had information some people valued and would go to great lengths to obtain.
When safety- for a single person, a community, or all Americans- could potentially be threatened by information, whether spoken or published, some may argue that it is the government’s responsibility to prevent that from happening (even if it undermines the very essence of free speech). For example, you can’t yell “bomb” on a plane or “fire” in a movie theater. These scenarios could potentially result in someone getting seriously injured which is why it is illegal for someone to do so.
Government infringement of free speech against people outspoken about politics and government actions is where this topic gets even more interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Clear and present danger is a touchy subject. Just what constitutes the legality of speech in any form is somewhat hazy. I will concede that some governmental protection of information is necessary. However, the censorship required violates free speech. The debate that emerges is civil liberties vs. protection. When does the protection of interests impede free speech so much as to be detrimental? It seems that limiting free speech is a necessary evil.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree...there is both a problem with unlimited speech and limited speech. The goal should be reaching the middle-ground in which people are protected from injury brought on by certain speech(the bomb or fire example) as well as being allowed to speak freely about their political or religious allegiances.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIts funny how you say "Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of American Freedom because even though we have freedom of speech there is still a limit of what we can say. I do agree clear and present danger is a touchy subject to because people lives are at risk. I feel our speech laws is at its best right now because we do need some government control over certain things that say people will be offended by and it will cause chaos. At the end of the day one still can say stuff on the internet or in public places
ReplyDeleteFree Speech is like any other right; it's allowed to the extent that it doesn't interfere with the fundamental rights of others. The Supreme Court justifies that very ambiguous statement with the "clear and present danger" clause. The thing about free speech laws is that they are made to cover all of the legal bases, even though the lawmakers know that nobody with a shred of common sense is going to shout FIRE in the middle of a crowded auditorium.
ReplyDelete