Arguments Against Mcdumm Speech

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.” (Oscar Wilde)
The book In Our Defense by Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy mentions the Freedom of Speech court case Missouri Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kansas City. Members of the racist Ku Klux Klan, who believe in white supremacy, tried spreading their beliefs through the public access channel which is free of editorial control from the cable company. In their vision either the KKK creates a white nation in five American states or all African Americans move to Africa. They decided to produce the show “Klansas City Kable,” in a 95% black neighborhood. It would cover political and racial issues and advocate separation of black and white
This regulation can only be used to restrict speech because of content-neutral criteria, not to restrict certain, offensive content. For example, protests in a busy shopping street where they would disrupt foot traffic can be prohibited. Here speech is limited based on content-neutral criteria. McDumm would not have been arrested had he talked about the weather so his speech was limited because of its content. Therefore, this regulation cannot be applied. Also, his speech was given in a park. Parks are considered “public forums,” meaning they have traditionally been used to assemble and discuss thoughts and is therefore one of the most protected places for speech. Furthermore, McDumm's speech did not create a clear and present danger. If McDumm's speech was causing a riot, which it did not, his speech would be causing clear and imminent danger and could be restricted. We have to accept that even if we do not agree with McDumm's speech, he has the right to express
the U.S. was brought to the Supreme Court. Schenck was the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America, which opposed World War I. They believed the war was caused by the rich for their benefit and would hurt the poor and middle classes. Under Schenck's supervision, they mailed over 15000 leaflets urging men to oppose the draft. He was sentenced to prison for acting against the Espionage Act of 1917. Parts of that Act forbid to interfere with draft and restrict Freedom of Speech to suppress war opposition. Schenck argued that his freedom of speech was violated and should have been protected by the First Amendment. According to him, this amendment was specifically intended to protect political speech. The opposing side argued that a nation at war had the right to protect its security. Any action causing the nation to lose important soldiers was a threat to national security that cannot be tolerated. Therefore it can be prosecuted during war time. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Schenck's