Free Speech

The Bill of Rights, which comprises the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, provides specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the US Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.

The First Amendment protected the freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition. It aims to guarantee the basic values of a democratic society by allowing the press and/or the people to directly criticize or inquire about government policies without any fear of threats or arbitrary action by any of its instrumentalities in curtailing popular dissent on any abuses.

The amendment also allows the people to freely adhere to any religion by allowing them to define their own faith in God, by respecting individual differences on how such faith is manifested, without any fear of intervention or repression from the government.

The First Amendment has always been interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in favor of the press. The role of the media in shaping public opinion has since then been identified as a vital tool in the discussion of public policy by engaging communities and determining where abuses are present.

The recent insurrection that happened at the US Capitol under the guise of the protection of the First Amendment freedoms raises an important question on what kind of personal liberties are protected, and what actions are permitted in asserting that right.

It is clear that freedom of speech is very vital, and drawing the lines and boundaries around it will have to be done with extreme care. The Bill of Rights were adopted because of a negative experience that the thirteen colonies experienced from the government of an abusive British King.

So, how far is the extent of freedom of speech? In a short answer, it extends really far. But what is very clear is defining what it is not. The First Amendment simply cannot be invoked in committing a crime. The protesters at the US Capitol were not asserting their rights when they have attacked the US Congress. Protected speech does not carry with it the act of protecting insurrection by invoking the First Amendment.

For example, libelous statements are somehow very thinly separated from the territory of the First Amendment freedoms. The vital element in determining libel or defamation rests on establishing malice. In the end, constitutionally protected speech has been enshrined in the Bill of Rights for the people to use it for the general welfare, and not on some other group's self-preservation and propaganda, or much so to injure someone.

In fact, libel has also been used as a tool to suppress popular dissent. In the Philippines, this is a common legal tactic employed when freedom of speech is used to warn the public of certain effects of merchandise or commercial activity. Moreover, it is very much present in demand letters of credit collecting agencies when trying to intimidate a person with credit card debt to settle their accounts. This is due to the fact that libel remains a crime in the Philippines.

x-----x

Picture from Pixabay.