No Restrictions On The First Amendment Essay

The First Amendment is the cornerstone of American democracy and the primary protector of the freedoms Americans enjoy. While some might argue that there should be no restrictions on the First Amendment, the First Amendment should be restricted in order to promote public safety and ensure the smooth functioning of society, and those limitations should be narrowly crafted and explicitly defined by the Supreme Court.
A person has the right to voice his or her opinion on a matter, regardless of what another person thinks about that opinion. This idea should be protected under the First Amendment unless a person’s opinion expressed through speech incites violence or disrupts the flow of society. For example, provoking another person to act in a violent way by speaking racial or ethnic slurs directly to them is not protected speech as this kind of speech could potentially endanger others. Another example of harmful speech with should not be protected is when a person yells “Bomb!” in a crowded airport, inducing pandamonium and causing the entire airport to shut
down, disrupting the lives of thousands of people. The type speech identified in these examples should not be protected by the First Amendment and should be restricted because they involve the endangerment of others or the shutdown of an essential part of society not because the speech was hateful or unagreeable. One must remember “It is always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object” (American Bar Association).
Some might argue that there should be no restrictions placed on the First Amendment for reasons such as the idea that no freedom of speech would lead to no freedom of thought or that restrictions on freedom of speech will drive away intellectuals.
These arguments are extremely valid; however, they do not apply to the restrictions that have been outlined in this essay. Any restrictions to the First Amendment should apply only to thoughts or speech that expressed a certain way incite violence or disrupt the flow of society. Under the restrictions proposed above a person would be able to think what they wish. Intellectuals often use the freedom of speech to encourage free, open-minded discourse with the goal of human advancement. Thus, an intellectual would likely not express thoughts or actions that contradicted the limitations proposed as the limitations would restrict actions that inhibit progress not promote
it.
These limitations on the First Amendment should be created and considered by the Supreme Court as it is their elected job to interpret the constitution and its amendments. Popular opinion should not determine what is considered free speech and what is not. Limitation of free speech is a slippery slope that will lead to the disappearance of the freedom of speech all together. If one person decides that a belief or statement they do not agree with is not protected by the First Amendment then who is to say that another person could not also decide that a different belief or statement is not protected. Eventually nothing could be considered free speech. This is why the Supreme Court should consider any restrictions carefully and put into place only the most minimal restrictions possible.
Any restrictions attached to the First Amendment should be considered with great care and done so with the intent of protecting the safety of the public. Speech should not be restricted just because somebody does not agree with it or is offended by it. We might not agree with what someone has to say but we must defend to the death their right to say it.