What Is Freedom of Speech?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the First Amendment guarantee to free speech: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech….” I noticed that the amendment does not tell us what is meant by speech, free speech, or if all types of speech are protected.

L. S. Vygotsky (1896-1934), a Russian theorist, recognized that our human ancestors used tools in their efforts to master their environment and to survive. He proposed that humans also created “psychological tools” with which to master their own behavior (William Crain, Theories of Development, 2016). Some of the first tools were notched sticks and knotted ropes when they needed to remember how many of whatever there were. They later made other mental tools, such as maps to return to a certain place or to plan future moves.

Vygotsky called the human-made tools signs. Some of the most important signs used by human beings are speech, writing, and numbering systems. Speech serves numerous functions as it helps us to communicate. Words symbolize things and events, and speech helps us to share past experiences and to plan for future events. Writing and numbering systems help us to keep permanent records of information.

This means that we should first recognize that speech is a way for us to communicate our thoughts and feelings to other people, to share our experiences, and to plan for the future. The First Amendment guarantees that the government shall not abridge our right to speak freely. This means that the government cannot restrict, hinder, or restrain our ability to put our thoughts and feelings into words.

Lawyers.com defines freedom of speech as something more than words coming out of a mouth. 

As humans, we have many different ways of expressing our thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. While the text of the First Amendment refers to “freedom of speech,” courts have recognized that this right includes many different kinds of expression, including

:

·         Spoken and written words, including social media posts and comments,

·         Theater, dance, visual art, movies, TV shows, videos, and video games,

·         Actions that convey a message (known as “symbolic speech”) like burning a flag,

·         Clothes that express an opinion or demonstrate faith, from T-shirts with slogans to religious headscarves,

·         Signing a petition, and

·         Money, in the form of independent spending related to political campaigns (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)).

History.com explains that freedom of speech is “the right to express opinions without government restraint.” It is “a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece” where free speech was pioneered as a democratic principle. The site continues by explaining that freedom of speech in the United States is guaranteed, but it can be limited. “In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are – and aren’t – protected under U.S. law.” According to this site, the following speech is not protected:  

·       Obscene material such as child pornography,

·         Plagiarism of copyrighted material,            

·         Defamation (libel and slander), and

·         True threats.                                                                                                                                               

This brings us to the vote on the privileged resolution in the U.S. Houseof Representatives to censure Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan’s 12^th District on Tuesday night. The measure passed the House by a vote of 234 yeas to 188 nays. Twenty-two (22) Democrats voted for the resolution, four (4) Republicans voted against it, four (4) members voted present, and seven (7) members did not vote. 

Tlaib was censured for her statements criticizing Israel for its response to the terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7. In the attack, people of all ages from infants to elderly were killed in a gruesome manner by the terrorists. Tlaib was also criticized because she appeared at rallies hosted by anti-Israel groups, such as Jewish Voices for Peace, in Washington, D.C.

In addition, Tlaib was censured for using the statement “From the river to the sea.” This is a statement used by Muslims, terrorists, and others that means death to all Jews. Tlaib claimed in a tweet that it is “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.” However, Tlaib’s words and actions served to bring out anger and hate against Jews.

 In keeping with the topic of this post, I must ask a question: Did Tlaib cross the line when she made her statements and participated in the protests? She probably did not if she were a regular citizen. Even though Tlaib is a Palestinian-American with family living in Gaza, she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives where she is held to a higher standard. Her words and actions were not appropriate for the position she holds. Her colleagues in the House did not infringe on Tlaib’s freedom of speech. They merely told her by their vote that her statements and actions were not appropriate for a member of the House.                                                                     

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I often hear counsel from leaders to represent the Church of Jesus Christ well. If I were to cross the line into saying words or taking actions that would be embarrassing to the Church of Jesus Christ or its leaders, I could be censured – given a warning, having some privileges withdrawn, or losing my membership. I am to be a good representative of Jesus Christ and should speak and act as one. This is the same expectation of Tlaib – to speak and act as a member of the House of Representatives should.