Itec 4205

Michael Grimes

ITEC 4205
Fall 2017

Assignment 1

9/1/2017

The year is 1735, John Peter Zenger, a German immigrant to New York is on trial for publishing a journal that voiced opposition against the Royal Governor. Under current law, Zenger should be handed a guilty verdict and imprisoned, but not this day. This day, through a stunning court room defense, Zenger is found not guilty, and the groundwork for freedom of speech is laid. Zenger, and many others have fought tooth and nail for this great and powerful right over the years, and though it has remained fairly intact since its acceptance in the First Amendment, it has had to make several changes and restrictions over the years due to the nature of free speech. While the freedom of speech is a foundational right in the United States, this freedom is not without limits.

        While there are many nuances to the law, generally speaking, hate speech in the form of 'fighting words' are not protected under the first amendment freedom of speech. Fighting words are described as being words that would likely cause one to act in violence to the one who spoke them. In today’s current events, like the protests and rallies held surrounding President Donald Trump and the Federal Government, the definition of fighting words is being put to the test. Increasingly more violent protests are breaking out and many of the incidences of violence stem from a misunderstanding or disregard for free speech.

Like the previous instance of unprotected speech, cases in which words are deemed to be defaming have many legal subtleties, but generally speaking, are not protected by the first amendment free speech. Defamation is a false claim about a party and is characterized by rhetoric that causes the plaintiff humiliation, or that hurts their financial wellbeing.  There have been several cases that have been in the media in recent years. The Hulk Hogan defamation case, Bollea v. Gawker is one of those such cases. Hulk Hogan was awarded $31 million in the case, claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress. In this instance, the plaintiff, Hulk Hogan, successfully argued that he was subjected to humiliation, and that this event caused him emotional distress. Gawker overstepped the line of freedom of speech into invasion of privacy and defamation. More recently Denver DJ David Mueller sued pop singer Taylor Swift for defamation, claiming that verbal slander from Swift caused Mueller to be fired from his position. In this case Mueller accusing Swift of defamation, could not disprove the rhetoric that Swift was pursing. As a result Mueller lost this case because, the court rule that defamation did not occur. Both of these are examples of legal action caused by unprotected speech. The previous two instances covered legal limits of the freedom of speech, but there are more restrictions than just legal boundaries.

While there are relatively few cases in which freedom of speech is limited legally, one also needs to consider the consequences of one's right to free speech. Even though statements made by a party may not break the law, or be legally protected under the freedom of speech clause, one needs to consider the social and cultural effects of one’s speech. Employers can still fire employees based on comments made, and organizations can distance themselves from speech that they deem harmful to the group. The effects of freedom of speech go much further than legal ramifications. Take for example the former google employee, that was recently fired for circulating a so-called manifesto arguing that women were less suited to certain jobs. The company, Google, fired the former employee for violating the companies code of conduct. In this case, the former employee was completely protected under the freedom of speech clause, but not protected from cultural, societal, and organizational code of conduct norms. As a result, he had to endure the consequences. There are more limits to the freedom of speech than legal restraints.