Decoded by Danielle

I think that the First Amendment has withstood the test of time because of its unwavering flexibility, especially since it lies at the foundation of our democracy. Through all of the flexibility, it’s gone through trials and tribulations, yet still remained the backbone of our society. Since its inception, the First Amendment has faced similar tests in regards to balancing between freedom of expression and regulation. Since it is an ever-evolving framework designed to be flexible with changing societal needs, it helps fuel our society, ultimately keeping our democracy alive and thriving. 

In the first reading this week Hague v. CIO, it was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court that public places need to always remain open to the public for citizens to meet, protest and speak. The court’s decision upheld that the democratic process cannot be separated from freedom of speech and assembly. This case was important because it set a precedent that any form of government should not regulate when or how citizens meet, protest and speak. This case was so instrumental because it didn’t just protect speech and expression, it protected speech and expression in public gathering spaces, too. This is relatable to things that are happening today, as we see attempts by government to stop or control protests under the pretext of “maintaining order.” 

I think my stance has remained clear throughout that any attempt by policymakers through legislation to regulate speech slowly eats away at the foundation of our democracy. Today, we see some of these constraints popping up by policymakers introducing state-level legislation designed to restrict or limit what is considered “acceptable” speech and/or expression. In the  Pen America’s Arresting Dissent reading from this week, it highlights new laws that heavily prohibit protests and prosecute citizens with heavy penalties for civil disobedience. Much of this legislation surfaced as a direct reaction to environmental activism and racial justice. This legislation is a direct backlash to the advocacy efforts mentioned above and shows that it is anything but neutral, highlighting its partiality and bias. These attempts by policymakers to limit citizen’s rights to freedom of speech/expression only weaken our democracy as I’ve discussed time and time again. 

Policy is absolutely NOT and never will be an appropriate avenue to regulate freedom of speech. It should never be the determinant of whose voices matter and whose don’t. As soon as policymakers start making laws and rules that determine what kind of speech/expression is and isn’t “acceptable,” our democracy starts to crumble. By defining what speech is or isn’t acceptable, this opens the flood gates to censorship disguised as regulation, and when this happens, the foundation of the democracy cracks. We’ve seen past instances of government overreach before. In Butler v. Michigan, the court made it abundantly clear that legislation made to protect morality can rapidly turn into censorship. This ruling still applies and is still relevant today; trying to decide which speech and ideas are acceptable, is a direct attack on free speech. 

Policy is great and needed for many things. However, it is not necessary to govern which speech is acceptable and which speech is not. Freedom can only be kept alive when we protect the expansive nature of the First Amendment.