The U.S. Supreme Court has wisely upheld the principle that the freedom of speech must extend to speech we dont like, or else its not really freedom at all. In a Monday ruling in the case Matal v. Tam, the court was unanimous.<\/p>\n
A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all, pointed out Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in one of two concurring opinions issued. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the governments benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.<\/p>\n
Added Justice Samuel Alito, The proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate. <\/p>\n
Thats an important point to make in these times, when free speech is under attack from many sides. <\/p>\n
The case itself was over a trademark. The government wasnt attempting to simply silence offensive speech; it was, instead, using a lesser law to punish the speakers. <\/p>\n
The justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions, the Washington Posts Eugene Volok explains. In Matal, the government refused to register The Slants as a bands trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasnt trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination - including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints - is unconstitutional. <\/p>\n
Why is this important? Freedom of speech must be defended in times such as these, because those who would curtail it sound so very reasonable. <\/p>\n
CNN commentator Sally Kohn, for example, wants to limit hate speech and, in fact, any speech that would upset others. Shes not sorry that conservatives feel that they must remain silent on college campuses. <\/p>\n
If they feel like they can no longer speak against positive social change, good, she said in a 2016 interview with Kirsten Powers. <\/p>\n
The reason, she said, is that feelings are valid. Im never going to argue with peoples feelings. <\/p>\n
Even the Washington Post cant seem to get around the idea that feelings trump freedom. It pledges, even in light of the ruling, to continue its crusade against the Washington Redskins the name, not the football team. <\/p>\n
This is strong medicine, both in terms of the support it offers free speech and in terms of what it requires of those who do take offense at expressions likely to enjoy court protection as a result of this opinion - specifically the Washington football teams name The answer, in our view, is to redouble all lawful efforts to get that name changed, even if a federal lawsuit probably cant be one of them. <\/p>\n
Thats fine. But the court is right - freedom of speech must be defended. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the rest here:<\/p>\n
Editorial: Supreme Court is right to uphold freedom of speech - Tyler Morning Telegraph<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The U.S. Supreme Court has wisely upheld the principle that the freedom of speech must extend to speech we dont like, or else its not really freedom at all. In a Monday ruling in the case Matal v Continue reading