Free speech is something we all have come to know, enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution to allow citizens the unhindered right--on a federal level--to the ability to assemble, protest, and speak on issues. Yet, in today's climate of political and governmental discourse, we are being volleyed with claims of shutting down hate speech and speech that runs counter to some, and some to which they agree with said speech. The primary issue, in my opinion, is whether or not we as a society can and should suppress (censor) speech that some view as "hate speech."So, the real question becomes: what is defined as "hate speech" and when can you prevent it? First we must understand the case law that brings us to this pivotal moment. Whitney v. California (274 U.S. 357) is the first case where government attempted to restrict speech in a sense. Anita Whitney was charged and convicted of a felony under the California Criminal Syndicalism Act of 1919, where she was a part of the Communist Labor Party (CLP) who was attempting to teach criminal syndicalism, assembling with, and being a member of the CLP, according to the charges. The Supreme Court upheld that the CCSA was constitutional, but refuted that the act itself could punish someone with no imminent danger perceived. In his majority Concurrent Opinion, Justice Brandeis wrote:
This Court has not yet fixed the standard by which to determine when a danger shall be deemed clear; how remote the danger may be and yet be deemed present, and what degree of evil shall be deemed sufficiently substantial to justify resort to abridgement of free speech and assembly as the means of protection. To reach sound conclusions on these matters, we must bear in mind why a State is, ordinarily, denied the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence.
Later on, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444), the Supreme Court dealt with a Klansman who was charged and sentenced under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act. They then overturned his conviction because Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism Act forbade advocacy of the KKK. Thus, they overturned Whitney. From this case came the "Brandenburg Test" or known as the "imminent lawless action test" which consists of: intent, imminence, and likelihood. The main example of this is the falsely yelling fire in a theater. It would later be applied in Hess v. Indiana (414 U.S. 105) which upheld that an antiwar protester who yelled "We'll take the fucking street later (or again)," could not be punished because the language did not adhere to the Brandenburg Test. Thus, the government could take action against him for speaking against the war and not push for an imminent threat of force or harm.Now, you may rightly ask yourself, why does this matter? Well, in our current climate, we have the people who are protesting for the suppression of voice from a group that it believes to be harmful to society. While another group announces that it is only speaking out because it is a right, and that any speech, regardless of view, should be allowed to say it. Ultimately, we now come to whether or not censorship is acceptable for one, but not another. The real question of whether or not someone can speak out against a view, either vehemently or calmly, and not be censored? The only way to do this to apply the speech, from both views, under the Brandenburg Test.
I will add, that whether or not you agree, you cannot censor a view because you view it as "racist" or "fascist." These terms do not adhere to the Brandenburg Test
and cannot be silenced. Should you attempt to silence a view through force, it is against the law and should be punished--no matter who caused the harm from the force. If, a person does advocate for an action that is imminent, with intent, and has immediate likelihood, then that person or group should be arrested and charged for inciting violence and disruption.
Now, I know you may balk at my view of how this is to be treated and it is your right to do so, I cannot stop you from it, nor can you stop me from it either. You should never make it your opinion to silence a view solely because you disagree. If their view is one that is bad, let that voice be heard so your own arguments can be better and more reasoned to overpower that opinion of which you believe is to be incorrect--which it may or may not be.Finally, free speech is protected. Hate speech, or speech that is different than your view is allowed, unless it aligns with the Brandenburg Test; then, and only then, can you push for silencing speech.
