Free Speech

The question of whether legal protections should extend to offensive speech in all contexts is a complex and contentious one. While the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects free speech, there are limitations on this protection, particularly in cases of speech that is deemed to be offensive or harmful to others.

In general, the Supreme Court has held that speech that is merely offensive or hurtful is protected by the First Amendment (Levinson, 2013). This includes speech that is considered to be hate speech, as long as it does not rise to the level of inciting violence or causing direct harm to others (Stone, 1994). However, there are some contexts in which speech may be restricted or regulated, such as in cases of obscenity, defamation, or incitement to violence.

With regards to the specific question of whether legal protections should extend to offensive speech near funerals and houses of worship, the Supreme Court has considered such cases in the past. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the court held that the First Amendment protected the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket near the funeral of a soldier with signs containing offensive and hurtful messages (Smith, 2012). The court found that the picketing was a form of protected speech because the speech was a matter of public concern, and that the emotional distress caused to the family of the deceased did not outweigh the constitutional protection of such speech.

Overall, the courts have held that offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment, as long as it does not rise to the level of incitement to violence or causing direct harm to others. The Supreme Court has set a high bar for restrictions on speech, particularly in cases involving political or social issues, and has consistently held that the government may not regulate speech based on its content or viewpoint.

In specific cases, the courts have held that offensive speech is protected in contexts such as political protests, picketing near funerals, and even in cases of hate speechas was seen...…check on government power and a champion of individual rights.

Yet, limits have been placed on free expression and other First Amendment rights, including those put in place since 9/11: thus, today, the First Amendment provides broad protections for free expression, but there has been increased concern about national security and the government has put in place restrictions on free expression in the name of protecting the public. Words are often equated to violence by the political left (hate speech) while the same political left sees rioting and street violence by protesters and Antifa as free speech--so there are political games that are being played here. But that should not be surprising: The press has been an important institution in American society since colonial times. In the early days, newspapers were often partisan and served as mouthpieces for political factions. Today, it is not really much different. The only question people have today is who gets to decide whether speech equals violence and why there appears so often to be a double-standard in…