The issue of the first amendment rose with a fraternity in Oklahoma. They made a public statement that they would rather lynch and African American than allowing them in their frat. They also had chants about lynching and etc. This case hadn't made it to the supreme court.
Should this hate speech be allowed according to the first amendment? The point of the first amendment is to allow people to speak out for themselves because the government cannot speak for everyone. I noticed that the KKK when asked what they believed in, stated that they were pro themselves and not anti others. They also did not publically promote violence in order to not be shut down. Even though I think this idea of pro self-based on something like race is wrong, I believe that this is shut down, this takes away from the 1st amendment which leads to tyranny. However, I do not believe that putting others down and promoting violence based on rights should be allowed based on the 1st amendment. So this takes me to the conclusion that this frat should be shut down. What do you think? When does something become too much for the 1st amendment?
I believe in the market of free ideas. I believe that, no matter how hateful, bigoted, or absolutely ridiculous your ideas may or may not be, you have the right to express that idea, as long as you're not making any clear and reasonable threat to someone. In my opinion, the free market of ideas will shut your ideas down if the market finds your idea to be stupid/bigoted, etc etc, and if the market disagrees, it'll duke it out. The government need not interfere with it because if it does, we'll be susceptible to censorship of the people by the government because it's officials don't like what a certain group is saying. Like, imagine if Trump had this power, I'm sure we'd already be embroiled in some legal controversy.
ReplyDeleteI haven't researched into this case at all, but from what you're saying I don't think the frat presented a clear and reasonable threat towards the African American man. What they said was messed up and wrong, but was it a threat? Not from what I can see. I need to research into this further to come up with a solid conclusion though.
Sometimes, free ideas can be hurtful to others. Some people might say that you can't stop other people's ideas just because you don't like them. However, there's a difference between preaching about Jesus in the street and preaching about hating a group of people. While, people might feel uncomfortable by the Jesus preacher, it doesn't attack any group of people verbally. In this case, they are definitely attacking a group of people verbally. The problem with policing this is because lines are very hard to draw.
ReplyDeleteMore issues of free speech include people passing lies off as truths. Politicians are legally allowed to make claims that are completely false or over exaggerated. It's within their right to say it but should it be?