The First Amendment of the constitution governs the freedom of speech in the United States. This amendment protects the citizen’s freedom of expression from any kind of interference from the federal government. In instances where the government seeks to control or regulate speech’s content, the government is required by the Supreme Court to provide credible and significant justification. Over the years, racist individuals have used the First amendment as a form of justification for their racist expressions. The racists have consistently manipulated the First amendment claiming that just like other free ideas in a free democracy; their racist ideas deserve similar protection. This paper aims to show that the racist aims to show that the supposed freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment should not be used a justification for the expression of racists ideas as they emotionally injure minority groups and deem them as inferior. This inadvertently causes societal imbalance, which is in actual sense a contradiction to the foundations of the nation, which aim to create an equal society where everyone treated equal.
In his article, “On Racist Speech," Charles Lawrence claims that there are several strong reasons that can be advanced when it comes to the protection of racist speech and other offensive speeches. He states that one of the strongest reasons is “such protection reinforces our society’s commitment to tolerance as a value, and that by protecting bad speech from government regulation, we will be forced to combat it a community” (Lawrence, On Racist Speech). Although Lawrence’ assertion is quite sensible, it is crucial to realize that this is an unlikely scenario in the society. Most of the subjects or racial speeches are minority communities who in many instances have limited power to combat any type of racist speeches of ideas advanced to them. Most of them only have the government to look forwards in terms of protection of their rights. It is only through institutions of government that such members of the community subjected to racist speeches and ideas can seek retribution. Most members of the community are too busy to involve themselves with such matters. However, they may at heart support or emotionally such a course, active involvement is usually out of the question. It is very hard for instance to marshal members of the community to engage in a campaign against racist’s speech and consequently; it is only through the power of government that such issues can be tackled. The government should be allowed to regulate speeches that it deemed to be injuring to some community members. The determination of this regulation should be done after a disambiguation of the First amendment to determine the freedom of speech limits (Gale, 34).
The United States courts can be deemed to have contributed to the misuse of the First Amendment by racists. One mistake that the courts have consistently made is the failure to acknowledge that the major role of racist speech is to advance and maintain the subordination of one community by another (Gale, 45). Just like the white proponents of racist speech, courts have simply stepped aside and used the premise of the first amendment to allow the continuation of minority group’s oppression inform racist speech. While clear legal distinction is made of acts that constitute racial terrorism such as battery, vandalism, lynching, physical harassment and murder, no legal distinction have been made when it seems to racist words and the context of racist speech. The courts can in a way, therefore, be deemed to legitimize social inequality and at the same time silences the victims of this inequality by shoving the stipulations of the First Amendment into their face. For instance, Lawrence shows how the context of offensive speech is usually interpreted by the courts. He shows how courts have continuously held that it is quite impossible to regulate offensive speech in public avenues where there is a chance for the listener to “avoid the speech by moving on” (Lawrence, On Racist Speech). Lawrence is clearly against such an interpretation, which, in a way, seems to suggest that minority groups should avoid public places to avoid being subjected to racist wordings. Lawrence gives an example of minority college students who should not be required to stay in their dorm rooms to avoid racial oppression or assault. He states that, “Minimally, they should find a safe haven in their dorms and in all other common rooms that are part of their daily routine” (Lawrence, On Racist Speech).
Just like Lawrence suggests, by engaging in public debates about racist speech and the First Amendment without a clear and conclusive understanding of the context and nature of the harm that racist speech causes, we run the risk of “making the First Amendment an instrument of domination rather than a vehicle of liberation” (Lawrence, On Racist Speech). People who in many instances adopt offensives ideas have no idea about the experiences of being victimized through racial, homophobic and misogynist speech. Therefore, trying to use the First amendment as justification of their tendencies is clearly unwarranted for, as they only know one side of the story.
Conclusion
The First Amendment clearly protects the freedom of speech for all Americans. The enactment of this amendment was made to make sure that debate on social and public issues remained, robust, uninhibited and wide open for the good of all people. As much people have the rights to express themselves freely, if their expression in some way harms others, then these people are essentially infringing on the premise of the constitution.
Works Cited
Lawrence. C. “On Racist speech”. If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus." Duke Law Review3 (1990): n. pag. Print.
Gale, M E. "Reimagining the First Amendment: Racist Speech and Equal Liberty." John's Law Review 65.1 (2012): n. pag. Print.
