Securing the Blessings of Liberty

Americans have the privilege to express their thoughts on nearly any subject without government restraints. This is possible due to the existence of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Amendment protects the freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly. People who choose to say hurtful things and convey inappropriate messages are also protected by the First Amendment which upsurges nationwide controversy. Though there are some guidelines that prohibit people from making threats, stealing ideas and spreading lies, many people feel that there should be more restrictions in order to eliminate things such as hate speech and explicit content. Numerous people believe that the first amendment goes too far in protecting freedom of expression, however having censorship and banning certain kinds of speech would go against America’s values.

Though hate speech is offensive and repugnant, it should remain protected by the first amendment. The people of this country are meant to be equal, regardless of who they are and what they believe in. These individuals have every right to express their opinions and receive criticism, even if their ideas are derogatory. In the Supreme Court case Snyder v. Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church followed Fred Phelps to picket the funeral of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder. They held up hateful signs that showed their belief that the United States was being punished by god for accepting homosexuals, especially in the military. While Albert Snyder, father of the soldier, was understandably angry and hurt by this protest, words that may be deemed as hate speech are indeed protected by the First Amendment. This is because the Founding Fathers of this country truly believed in individual liberty; the freedom of a country’s citizens to exercise certain rights that they have without government intervention or repercussions. Many citizens in this country fail to see that individual liberty also applies to people with unethical morals, and so their judgement may be clouded by anger, grief or ideological differences. However, the supreme court ruled that this case dealt with “matters of public concern”, and ruled in favor of Phelps by an 8-1 vote (Snyder v. Phelps). Even though it may have been a difficult decision to make, they knew that they had to respect the values of the constitution. This case would not have been controversial if hate speech was banned since the judges would not have ruled in favor of Phelps. However, banning hate speech would go against the law of the land and would drastically reduce the discussion of social, religious, and political issues among the people. It would also leave the meaning of hate speech open to interpretation by the government, which could potentially lead to abuse of power.

Promoting censorship in the United States takes away the right to access knowledge. The United Nations drafted a document known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which lists basic human rights that people from all around the world should have. The United States should follow this document because they voted in favor of it, and since the core values of this country includes the protection of human rights, which is stated in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights clearly states that “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits” and “Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). This goes to show that the ability to attain knowledge, regardless of the subject or topic, is indeed a human right. However, uncensored explicit content has caused, and will continue to cause social upheaval in this country. Negative literary works, dark music and art have lead to extreme consequences such as murders and suicide, which is a huge downside to not having censorship or regulation. Nevertheless, news, science, art, music and literary works should remain uncensored in the United States because it helps bring up topics that are controversial or sensitive. This heightens people’s awareness of issues within the country, and encourages people to make an effort to solve such matters. Letting the government control what can and cannot be released to the public can give them too much authority. Furthermore, It would most definitely violate the First Amendment and go against the basic principles of this country.

The preamble to the Constitution of the United States clearly shows that its citizens need to “secure [their] blessings of liberty for [themselves] and [their] posterity”. This emphasizes the fact that liberty needs to be maintained in the country for current and future Americans. Placing further constraints to the First Amendment will mean that individual liberty of the people will be limited, which directly contradicts the words of the Founding Fathers and increases the government’s power. If these restrictions are ratified, the country’s posterity will not be able to experience the essence of liberty, and it would alter the path that was carved by the founders for the Americans to follow.