Synthesis

Upon registering for this course, I knew I was in for something much different than any other class I’ve taken before. During Fall Quarter, I heard countless stories about the CMJR 494: Communications Rights and Law class, the numerous court cases, the legalities of child pornography and obscenities of crush videos. Coming into the class, I knew I would be exposed to controversial topics and court cases and be forced to defend my stance on each one of them. In the past, I have had the tendency to express a fairly conservative view on most issues, so I was very interested in finding out how my views would be tested in regards to different court cases. Another topic that I was interested in exploring would be the First Amendment, or the right to Freedom of Speech. Like most other people, I believe in free speech for all, however I was curious to see if there were any exceptions that would cause me to change my perspective and think about the advantages of limitations to this amendment.

Throughout the course, we employed the help of many different philosophers and their theories in hopes of defending our perspective on freedom of speech. In the beginning when I first heard about Thomas I. Emerson’s expression-action theory, I thought that I would most likely agree with his point of view. I liked the idea of expression being absolutely protected, while action receives no protection (Tedford, 438). However, when I tried to apply his philosophy to certain cases, I found that I was contradicting myself and my beliefs. The only cases in which Emerson’s philosophy was applicable and in line with my point of view involve those of slander and libel. In theory, I felt like he had many valid points and ideas, but when applied, it did not seem to fit in with my beliefs. After much research, I found that John Stuart Mill and Zechariah Chafee’s perspectives were more in line with my values. Though these two philosophers seem to have contradictory viewpoints, I believe that some of their ideas do correlate and intertwine.

An English philosopher and economist, John Stuart Mill believes in freedom of speech being justified for three reasons:
1. The censored opinion may be in error
2. Even truth needs to be challenged and tested, else it becomes a “dead dogma”
3. There is probably some truth in all opinions (Tedford, 13)
I thought it was very creative the way Mill didn’t follow suit and tell people to believe that the majority opinion is correct. As Mill said in his book, On Liberty, “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind”. This is a philosophy that I feel is very important to remember because it tells us that just because an opinion is in accordance with the majority, it does not mean that the opinion is correct. It is important not to punish someone because their values are not in line with those of everyone else’s in the community. This is why in cases like the ones involving the Westboro Baptist Church, I would defend the church’s right to freedom of speech. Though I in no way agree with the Westboro Baptist Church’s views or beliefs, I do feel that they have the right to speak their opinions and have the freedom to express their personal beliefs even if it is not in agreement with my own views or the views of our society. This is only true though if their speech is in line with the harm principle. I fully believe that Mill’s harm principle is something that should be applied to all speech because to me, the safety of the people is more important than the right to express yourself any way you choose. Though I do believe that we should all have the right to freedom of speech, I also feel that our safety comes first and sometimes it is determinant on a case-by-case basis—such as the basis of the harm principle.

The second philosopher that I frequently employ the help of would be Zechariah Chafee. As a professor of law at Harvard University, Chafee proposes maximum protection for “worthwhile” speech that serves the social interest, while permitting constraints on speech that presents a clear and present danger to the community or to the nation. In short, Chafee allows the punishment of “worthless” speech, such as profanities and defamation (Tedford, 436). I liked the idea of “worthless” speech being punishable by law because I feel as though it is comparable to Mill’s harm theory. Chafee also believes in the right to free speech, especially if society can benefit from it as a whole. The only time in which free speech should not be allowed is when it takes away from the society or harms an individual or a group—such as in the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

Philosophy has never been an interesting topic to me, however I was pleasantly surprised to find that this class was able to change my perception of that. Though sometimes confusing, the philosophies and ideas presented made me think about speech in ways that I never had before. I was also surprised to find that it was so difficult to take a stance on certain cases. Before this class, I felt that for the most part, I had a pretty solid viewpoint of looking at life but the court cases showed that the many different components makes it difficult to take sides.

In my opinion, the most fascinating cases that we discussed were the Westboro Baptist Church and child pornography. I liked learning more about the Westboro Baptist Church because I found it to be very challenging to change my stance on whether or not their speech should be banned. Before this class, I didn’t understand why they were able to protest during funerals and practice their faith since it seemed so similar to a cult. After looking into the specifics, I couldn’t help but side with the decision to allow their speech and their opinion even though it is against that of society’s. I knew that if the WBC’s speech was restricted, this leaves room for much more limitations to our freedom. The second topic I found very interesting, upsetting and confusing was the issue of child pornography. It made me extremely uncomfortable to look at the images of children portray artistically being legal. It was difficult for me to believe that the guidelines on child pornography (to me) seemed so vague and the excuse of artistic content is enough of an argument for something close to child pornography to exist.

Over the course of this quarter, this class has taught me a lot about myself and my beliefs. I learned that though one can feel that they have strong grounded values, without knowing both sides of the story, it is impossible to make an accurate judgment. I realized that my bias on many of the cases and issues discussed were because of the one sided portray of the cases in the media. After looking into the cases, I found that many of these types of expression are protected by the law and one exception can change the course of the law completely. Overall, I am very glad I was able to learn about all the different court cases we discussed and how it affected the American culture and our history in terms of free speech. I gained different perspectives on freedom of speech that I’ve never had before. The philosophies and cases are something that I can definitely take with me and put to good use—even in everyday life.