Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
It’s your last chance to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch in 2017. Help us gear up to fight the status-quo in 2018! Every dollar counts!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

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

by

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: Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2015). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

December 14, 2017
John W. Whitehead
Surveillance That Never Sleeps
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Roy Moore’s Loss: a Victory for the Young Girls of America
Eric Toussaint
Debt is a Determining Factor in History
Liaquat Ali Khan
Appropriation of Jerusalem
Kenneth Surin
Selective Impressions of the New Zealand-Aotearoa Conjuncture
Jack Rasmus
Is the Bitcoin Bubble the New ‘Subprime Mortgage’ Bomb?
William Sanjour
How the Once Tiny Waste Management Industry Captured the EPA and Became Very BIG
Devin Currens
Hey Mainstream Environmentalists: If You’re Not Embarrassed, You’re Not Paying Attention
Courtney Myers
“Me Too” Movement Gives Twitter Fuel to Trump’s Fire
Mel Gurtov
Momentum for Talks with North Korea?
Julian Vigo
Student Loans, The Indentured Servitude of the 21st Century
John Carroll Md
Do Jimmy Kimmel and Haiti Have Anything in Common?
Brian Foley
How to Stop Trump
December 13, 2017
Gabriel Rockhill
The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was
Jim Kavanagh
Zionism in the Light of Jerusalem
John Davis
The Epic of Our Awakening
Linn Washington Jr.
The Shadow of Smuts on Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration
Timothy M. Gill
The Global Retreat From Human Rights in the Trump Administration
Robert Fisk
Trump’s Shameful Decision on Jerusalem
Lance Olsen
Natural Variability isn’t the Final Word on Climate Science
Robert Jensen
In Patriarchy, Sexual “Misconduct” Not Surprising
Mike Bader
Grizzly Bear Goal Not Yet Achieved
Steve Horn
India May Ban Petcoke, One of Dirtiest Fossil Fuels Exported by Koch Brothers
December 12, 2017
John Pilger
Why the Documentary Must Not Be Allowed to Die
David Rosen
Politics Trumps Religion: The Immorality of Republican “Christian” Morality
Ken Levy
Apparently, Child Rapists Deserve the Death Penalty, But a Child Molester Deserves a U.S. Senate Seat
John Wight
Trump’s Jerusalem Ploy
David Swanson
Sun Tzu: The Ass of War
Ramzy Baroud
The ‘Last Martyr’: Who Killed Kamal Al-Assar?
Doug Johnson
Are Polls Showing a Win for Accused Molester Roy Moore Accurate?
Andrew Bacevich
A Harvey Weinstein Moment for America’s Wars?
Robert Dodge
Saving Humanity From Itself
Binoy Kampmark
Pakistan, US Drones and Idle Threats
Tom H. Hastings
Leave it on The Table Again?
Cesar Chelala
Living in New York. Missing Home
December 11, 2017
Oscar Oliver-Didier 
The Invisibility of Poverty in Puerto Rico
Patrick Cockburn
Trump’s Jerusalem Decision Risks Uniting the Entire Arab World Against the US
Uri Avnery
From Barak to Trump
Robert Hunziker
Dying Ecosystems
Paul Tritschler
The Year Without Summer
Ramzy Baroud
What Trump Has Done: The Entire US-Middle East Political Framework Just Collapsed
Francis Thicke
What Does “Organic” Mean?
Franklin Lamb
Foreign Proxies Prematurely Boast “Mission Accomplished” in Syria
Mike Whitney
Petty, Backstabbing by Washington Sinks Russia’s Olympic Dreams
Mel Gurtov
The Calculated Destruction of America’s Government
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail