Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


The First Amendment: A Right to Listen

10/18/2014

1 Comment

 
Picture
By Rebecca Heilweil

Rebecca Heilweil is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania.

Free speech is perhaps the basis of American democracy. As the opening of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment holds that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of Speech." The first ten amendments of the Constitution were meant to dilute a strong national government, seen as a federalist victory. They represented an attempt to re-solidify the individual as the unit of New World republican values, rather than an overly empowered President or Congress. 

Free speech is often thought of as the power of the individual to speak up against the government. However, Supreme Court reasoning offers an alternate view. While patriotic rhetoric paints the First Amendment as a declaration of individual agency, judicial reasoning often prefers to classify the freedom of speech as communal or utilitarian.


According to many constitutional theorists, the "speaker" is not the only agent that has stakes. There is also an audience. The First Amendment does not protect the right to talk, but rather attempts to satiate the public's need to listen. In the case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court considered a Minnesota ordinance that criminalized hate speech. [1]A teenager had been caught burning a cross on an African-American family's front lawn. There was no question that the boy had committed a hateful act, and that he was expressing a political opinion.

Elena Kagan, in a University of Chicago Law Review article titled "Private Speech, Public Purpose" posited that the ordinance had failed the long-established content neutrality standard – this required that a government law could limit speech, but could not do so based on the content of the speech.[2] For example, the government cannot ban Republican T.V. advertisements, but could possibly ban all T.V. advertisements. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the decision, seemed to agree, concluding that the government "may not prohibit, for example, only that obscenity which includes offensive political messages." [1]

But the decision did not center around the issue of the boy's right to speak. Rather, the Court wondered whether the community – the audience – was harmed by skewing the general diversity of views and opinions through proscribing certain types of speech. Kagan, explaining the outcome of the case, argued: "the ordinance discriminated in its operation on the basis of viewpoint; the law effectively barred only the fighting words that racists (and not that opponents of racism) would wish to use. The ordinance, while not restricting a great deal of speech, thus restricted speech in a way that skewed public debate on an issue by limiting the expressive opportunities of one side only...the ordinance ensured that listeners would confront a distorted debate." She then quoted philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn, who wrote: "What is essential...is not that everyone shall speak, but that everything worth saying shall be said." [2]

Meiklejohn, in many ways, went farther than Kagan. In his piece “Free Speech and its Relation to Self-Government," he wrote: "It is that mutilation of the thinking process of the community in which the First Amendment to the Constitution is directed."[3] He argued that free speech is the right to hear. Meijklejohn, like many other free speech theorists, believed that discourse was a tool for improving governance. When ideas, free in their own market, can compete, people are free to consider which of those ideas are best and ought to be implemented. According to Meiklejohn, the burning cross was a message that the public had the right to judge the validity of without government interference.

The concept of a market of ideas is not solely Meiklejohn's. When John Stuart Mill described free speech and its significance in his famous "On Liberty," he saw public discourse as vital to the search for public truth, not simply communal prosperity. [4] Mill believed criticism was the only route to public infallibility and that the public needed to be simultaneously debating and educating itself. He thought truth could become false without opposition, and that the general populace was harmed by "false" facts not constantly questioned by his "idea market."

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Court ultimately concluded that there was a difference between ordinances that proscribed "fighting words," which as a class were intolerable, and fighting words of only a certain type of message.

A question also exists of how involved the government ought to be in the free speech realm. The Court in R.A.V. v City of St. Paul, determined that in some cases, the government could certainly minimize some types of speech, as long as that minimization is content line. The question remains if, and how, the government can function as a creator of speech itself. The Court offered that rather than limiting hateful speech, the government could pursue alternate methods of encouraging tolerance: "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire." [1]

Meiklejohn, like others, saw free speech as the cornerstone of the social contract. The public used free speech to actively consider the role of their governance, and their self-government. How such interpretations of our First Amendment will change over time still remains to be seen.

 
[1] R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377.
[2] Elena Kagan, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Spring, 1996): 413-517. 
[3] Alexander Meiklejohn, "Free Speech and its Relation to Self Government," Harper and Brothers Publishers (1946).
[4] John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty," (1869). 

Photo Credit: Flickr user Ed Uthman
1 Comment
Edvardas Vitkauskas
6/13/2019 08:21:28 am

Trump wants to hear what other countries have to say about his adversaries. That should be his right under the freedom of speech ammendment. If not then the 28th amendment should be freedom to listen

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Aaron Tsui
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alexandra Kerrigan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Amanda Damayanti
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Arshiya Pant
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Catherine Tang
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Jewell
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabrielle Cohen
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Hannah Steinberg
    Harshit Rai
    Hennessis Umacta
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Ingrid Holmquist
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Khlood Awan
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyan Casamalhuapa
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Michael Merolla
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nathan Liu
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nicole Patel
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Paula Vekker
    Pheby Liu
    Pragat Patel
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Samantha Graines
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Tyler Ringhofer
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    September 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    May 2023
    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.