By Austin Campbell

News editor

[email protected]

Trends in America and around the world have blurred the line between true freedom of speech and limited freedom of speech. As a result, moral issues related to our rights arose. Is it okay to say something offensive if it hurts someone else? Should we control or limit someone’s speech if we want to collectively silence an unpleasant opinion?

In recent years, society has taken shape to become a great echo chamber of thoughts, ideas and reactions, a semblance of a collective spirit of “do’s and don’ts”, of what to say, think or how to react to events. .

There are many trends in the United States that will cause young people to regurgitate buzzwords or ideas on social media. Unfortunately, coherent stimuli don’t give anyone the ability to think about a thought long enough to form their own opinion.

We see and hear provocative things on a daily basis now, and more often than not, some of the things we encounter can be quite violent or infuriating. For example, under the political spotlight shines a topical, controversial and highly polarizing court case, WI v. Rittenhouse.

Everyone you meet who is familiar with the matter has an opinion, and more often than not, it is not very neutral.

The case highlights a dissonant split in America right now. “Do you think Rittenhouse is innocent?” You must be a gun freak who loves Trumpster. or on the contrary: “Do you think he is guilty?” I bet you are a liberal snowflake who voted for Sleepy Joe.

Realistically, most people choose their positions in life because what they have been told matches their political parties, not because they feel it. So how would someone who has not professionally or legally analyzed this matter know what they are talking about?

Most people have seen the videos of the Kenosha shootings, but without actually being there people have very uninformed opinions about the matter. Americans on both sides of the political spectrum echo the repetitive style phrases of their political parties or their friends.

The public education system has urged Americans not to think too critically about the information presented to them, not withhold essential facts, and learn the exact wording needed to pass tests. Sadly, this imprint doesn’t just disappear after high school graduation, it also bleeds into our beliefs about free speech.

We have a modern society of worker drones trying to pass the collective test of their peers and what they think is the answer to being American.

Our true freedom of expression and concept of self-originality has been overruled by society’s group thinking and comfortable ideals of not making people uncomfortable.

The definition, why doesn’t it make sense?

The definition of free speech is at best fuzzy and downright confusing at worst. The definition has only loosely taken shape through court cases in previous centuries. Freedom of speech has its limits, generally drawing the line of legality on the term obscenity.

In Miller v. California (1973), the United States Supreme Court legally defined obscenity. First, the average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to lustful interests. Second, the material in question depicts or describes, in a manifestly offensive manner, sexual behavior as defined by state law; and third, that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

The problem arose when the defendant, Miller, sent a large number of pornographic advertisements to houses in support of the sale of adult films or articles.

While we have a clear definition of what actions or ideas are considered obscene, with the inclusion of child pornography in New York v Ferber (1982), actions that large parts of America find offensive are still protected by law. law.

In the United States, there is no legal definition of hate speech. Moreover, certain statements considered hate speech are legally protected by the constitution. We have decided to allow the horrific extremes of free speech because as soon as we start controlling expression, no one really knows what the law is going to handle next.

In Virginia v. Black (2003), the case ruled that the burning crosses of the Klu Klux Klan were a “real threat” to free speech in America.

The court case essentially declares that it is legally acceptable to be a racist or to be part of a hate group, until your actions start to terrify or cause terror in public.

Cohen v. California (1971) a free speech court case regarding clothing, protecting individual rights to wear whatever they want. A man was wearing a jacket that said “Fuck the draft, stop the war!” on the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing it to be worn.

“One man’s vulgarity is another’s word,” Judge John Marshall Harlan said of the case.

These changes in tone between cases can leave a great sense of legal ambiguity and confusion about what the US government and constitutional rights properly protect.

Where does the legal line of free speech really lie and who does it protect in America? As for the confusion, it is legally acceptable to wear a Nazi brown shirt and Totenkopf SS death camp hat in Ingles as long as they do not distribute child pornography to the crowd. While this looks like an extreme example that I created, it was a real case that I witnessed in Black Mountain, NC this month.

Freedom of expression: choosing legality over morality

In western North Carolina and throughout the Southeastern United States, there are undeniable acts of racism or hatred that are present in our culture.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are 29 known and active hate groups in North Carolina as of 2020. These groups, as defined by the Law Center, range from white supremacists, to anti-immigration, to anti -white, to generalized hate groups. However, these different groups have one major point in common: they manifest hatred and express it publicly through actions and words.

As long as these hateful groups or individuals do not harass a person, their words and actions are protected by law.

The protections of the First Amendment also extend beyond speech. They also protect the actions Americans take, including the way we dress or represent ourselves.

This is why it is legally, but not morally, acceptable to be a neo-Nazi in the United States. It is only in a country so supportive of true freedom of expression that people can take these controversial political positions.

There is a certain irony in Americans exercising their right to free speech to attack Nazi ideology. It is only by having this American freedom that they are allowed to have these views and essentially play a live role as Nazi soldiers.

Historically, the Nazi regime did not support freedom of speech or freedom of expression. If these neo-Nazis spoke openly in the same way as in the United States, they would have been executed.

The U.S. military and allies fought and killed millions of Nazis to protect America’s right to free speech, and now you have these American neo-Nazis disguising themselves as the disgusting opponent of America’s equality ideology for all.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have fought and died to protect our rights as a country. I was a former active member of the US Air Force, now a disabled veteran. I was ready to kill or be killed to protect our rights as Americans. There were people I served with whom I didn’t agree politically. There are millions of Americans with whom I disagree on a single personal or political issue, but I would die anyway to make sure they can believe what they want to think.

Therein lies another question: Should America allow free speech for political groups that do not support any expression in their platform? Fascist and Communist governments around the world do not allow their citizens to take an unprecedented view of their government beliefs, yet America does. Take the extreme examples of censorship in countries like Eritrea, North Korea or Mexico, countries that kill and imprison journalists and citizens for voicing their thoughts.

Equal opportunity for all includes equality for hatred, equal opportunities for political ideology and equal opportunities for expression. Anyone can hate anyone, can offend anyone, and can say whatever they want. Just as someone can express an offensive idea, it is an equal right for people to be offended.

As a rule, the strongest emotions evoked on freedom of expression are taken into account when demonstrating hatred or fanaticism towards another person or group. However, contrary to popular belief, controversial opinions are also protected by the First Amendment. While there are significant gaps in the legal definition of free speech, many Americans should consider their morals when choosing their actions.

To have such a great right, like freedom of speech, we have to accept the consequences of unrestricted freedom. We cannot censor our fellow citizens just because we don’t like their opinion. We should be proud of our extraordinary diversity and the range of people who live in this country. Above all, remember that we are all Americans, whatever our beliefs.