• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

ONE WEEK TO DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!

A generous CounterPuncher has offered a $25,000 matching grant. So for this week only, whatever you can donate will be doubled up to $25,000! If you have the means, please donate! If you already have done so, thank you for your support. All contributions are tax-deductible.
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Free Speech for the Right? A Primer on Key Legal Questions and Principles

Photo by Fibonacci Blue | CC BY 2.0

The rise in national attention to the “alt-right” and fascist-white supremacist protesters has raised questions about the parameters of free speech in America. When can free speech be limited, if ever? What are the implications of attempting to limit controversial speech? And what precedents has the Supreme Court set regarding free speech? I address these questions below via an exploration of historical Supreme Court cases, which show that there’s no legal pretext for a blanket ban on far-right protests.

There are numerous precedents related to the topic of controversial speech. One major case is Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), in which a KKK member, Clarence Brandenburg, spoke at a rally about the possible need for “revengeance” against people of color as related to government initiatives taken in support of minority groups. Brandenburg was convicted under state law and sentenced to 10 years in prison for advocating violence, in violation of a state statute prohibiting support for “crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.” But in overruling the state conviction, the Supreme Court ruled that government could only restrict incendiary speech if there was an “imminent” violent action is incited by that speech.

The Brandenburg case is important because it demonstrates that there is no court support for shutting down far-right rallies based on the possibility of violence between protesters and their opponents. If an individual can be shown to have participated in an attack on, or murder of another, or to have actively encouraged that act or participated in it, this “speech” is not protected under the First Amendment, as the individual is considered an accessory to assault or murder. The Supreme Court’s reading of permissible and impermissible speech in this case was very narrow. It does not provide carte blanche authority to shutdown rallies due to the possibility of violence.

Another important court precedent is the case of Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949). In that case, Arthur Terminiello, an excommunicated Alabaman Catholic priest and white supremacist, delivered a speech in Chicago in which he attacked Jews, associating them with communist agitation. In response to the speech, 1,000 protesters gathered outside, many throwing rocks and bricks through the windows of the speaking venue, and attempting to break down the doors. Terminiello was convicted under a Chicago “breach of peace” ordinance, which prohibited speech that “stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance.” The facts of this case are probably the most comparable to modern day protest events like Charlottesville, in which far-right individuals engage in hate speech, and that speech is accompanied by violent attacks against critics and people of color.

The Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-to-4, decided that the “breach of peace” law was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech protections under the First Amendment. Justice William Douglas wrote: “a function of free speech under our system is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” Terminiello is a pivotal case for free speech law, in that it relates to a specific individual whose hateful rhetoric impelled protesters to action and to engage in violence.” Despite Terminiello’s incitement, the court was clear that there would be no precedent set that allowed for pro-actively shutting down rallies of far-right hatemongers.

A third case, Matal v. Tam (2016), makes explicit the Supreme Court’s declaration that there is no meaningful legal distinction between hate speech and free speech. In this case, the Supreme Court overruled a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, issued under the Lanham Act, which prohibited the federal government from recognizing trademarks that are “scandalous, immoral, or disparaging,” and that bring “into contempt or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” The case in question related to Simon Tam, the singer for the rock band “The Slants,” and the denial of trademark was issued, despite Tam’s effort to “reclaim” the derogatory term against Asian Americans, in the name of “social justice” and “to give a voice to communities who don’t often get a say for themselves.” The Supreme Court sided with Tam, with Justice Samuel Alito delivering the court’s opinion: “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”

Supporters of censorship might cite the court case of Schenk v. United States (1919) as evidence that the government has in the past restricted the content of individual speech. In this case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously wrote that free speech was not absolute:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” But citing this case is deeply problematic for a number of reasons. First, Holmes’ statement was not formally part of the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case, and as a result, it does not have the legal status of law. Second, the Schenck case is no longer even binding legal precedent, as it was overturned in the previously mentioned Brandenburg case in 1969. Third, the case is a great example of the dangers associated with politicizing free speech, and the potential for the American left to be greatly harmed by this practice. Strictly speaking, the case had nothing directly to do with a person yelling fire in a theater. Rather, the Supreme Court justified in this case the imprisonment of leftist protesters during World War I, using the Espionage Act to argue that anti-war activists gave aid and comfort to the enemy, threatened national security, and represented a “clear and present danger” to the country. The case is now widely seen as one of the more embarrassing court precedents in American history, with legitimate dissent against government criminalized, contrary to basic First Amendment free speech and assembly protections. Coupled with the Debs v. U.S. (1919) and Frohwerk v. U.S. (1919) cases, in which peaceful anti-war protesters were also jailed under the Espionage act, Schenck v. U.S. is an ominous reminder of the dangers inherent in politicizing free speech.

Today there is much debate among left-of-center Americans about the merits and demerits of cracking down on far-right hate speech. But aside from the legally dubious nature of such a crackdown, there are also pragmatic and principled concerns that arise. “The left” appears to be engaged in a debate over free speech that is taking place within a vacuum, divorced from broader power structures that are already being used to suppress progressive speech and thought. Many on the left seem to think they are in a position to dictate acceptable speech, and the reality is that we are not. In higher education, reactionaries in state legislatures (for example in Wisconsin) revoke tenure and seek to manipulate collegiate course curriculum for political purposes, in complete contempt for academic freedom. Far-right media personalities, politicians, and college administrators attack and even fire leftist professors for expressing their opinions about politics. In the private sector, workers are illegally fired for trying to unionize, and “free speech” is a pipe dream, since these venues don’t fall under First Amendment speech protections. Employers routinely monitor employees’ speech in the workplace and on social media, determining what constitutes acceptable speech. Those who engage in critical speech against their employer, or who express other controversial beliefs are fired “at will.”

The Trump administration demonizes peaceful left protesters in Boston as anti-police, and encourages his rally supporters to commit violence against peaceful critics of the president. Local police forces use violence with impunity against peaceful leftist protesters, as the recent events outside the Phoenix anti-Trump rally demonstrate all too clearly. In a neoliberal era in which leftist views are under assault, discussions about regulating the right’s speech seem increasingly naive, counter-productive, and dangerous. The last thing progressives need to be doing is make far-right fascists and white supremacists look like victims. Their hatred deserves no sympathy from the public. Far-right voices have already taken over American media discourse and the political system. Why should we lend legitimacy to this development?

More articles by:

Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
October 18, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Trump as the “Anti-War” President: on Misinformation in American Political Discourse
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Where’s the Beef With Billionaires?
Rob Urie
Capitalism and the Violence of Environmental Decline
Paul Street
Bernie in the Deep Shit: Dismal Dem Debate Reflections
Andrew Levine
What’s So Awful About Foreign Interference?
T.J. Coles
Boris Johnson’s Brexit “Betrayal”: Elect a Clown, Expect a Pie in Your Face
Joseph Natoli
Trump on the March
Ashley Smith
Stop the Normalization of Concentration Camps
Pete Dolack
The Fight to Overturn the Latest Corporate Coup at Pacifica Has Only Begun
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Russophobia at Democratic Party Debate
Chris Gilbert
Forward! A Week of Protest in Catalonia
Daniel Beaumont
Pressing Done Here: Syria, Iraq and “Informed Discussion”
Daniel Warner
Greta the Disturber
M. G. Piety
“Grim Positivism” vs. Truthiness in Biography
John Kendall Hawkins
Journey to the Unknown Interior of (You)
Christopher Fons – Conor McMullen
The Centrism of Elizabeth Warren
Nino Pagliccia
Peace Restored in Ecuador, But is trust?
Rebecca Gordon
Extorting Ukraine is Bad Enough But Trump Has Done Much Worse
Kathleen Wallace
Trump Can’t Survive Where the Bats and Moonlight Laugh
Clark T. Scott
Cross-eyed, Fanged and Horned
Eileen Appelbaum
The PR Campaign to Hide the Real Cause of those Sky-High Surprise Medical Bills
Olivia Alperstein
Nuclear Weapons are an Existential Threat
Colin Todhunter
Asia-Pacific Trade Deal: Trading Away Indian Agriculture?
Sarah Anderson
Where is “Line Worker Barbie”?
Brian Cloughley
Yearning to Breathe Free
Jill Richardson
Why are LGBTQ Rights Even a Debate?
Jesse Jackson
What I Learn While Having Lunch at Cook County Jail
Kathy Kelly
Death, Misery and Bloodshed in Yemen
Maximilian Werner
Leadership Lacking for Wolf Protection
Arshad Khan
The Turkish Gambit
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Rare Wildflower vs. Mining Company
Dianne Woodward
Race Against Time (and For Palestinians)
Norman Ball
Wall Street Sees the Light of Domestic Reindustrialization
Ramzy Baroud
The Last Lifeline: The Real Reason Behind Abbas’ Call for Elections
Binoy Kampmark
African Swine Fever Does Its Worst
Nicky Reid
Screwing Over the Kurds: An All-American Pastime
Louis Proyect
“Our Boys”: a Brutally Honest Film About the Consequences of the Occupation
Coco Das
#OUTNOW
Cesar Chelala
Donald Trump vs. William Shakespeare
Ron Jacobs
Calling the Kettle White: Ishmael Reed Unbound
Stephen Cooper
Scientist vs. Cooper: The Interview, Round 3 
Susan Block
How “Hustlers” Hustles Us
Charles R. Larson
Review: Elif Shafak’s “10 Minutes 38 Seconds in This Strange World”
David Yearsley
Sunset Songs
October 17, 2019
Steve Early
The Irishman Cometh: Teamster History Hits the Big Screen (Again)
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail