Free Speech and the Risk of Content Regulation

Should the government have the power to regulate speech content through either censorship or compelling speech?
The first amendment in the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” As written, the right of free speech is guaranteed with no constraints or restrictions. Free speech was recognized by our founders as a core component of a free society. It respects the rights of all citizens to express their opinions, investigate new ideas, debate policies and laws, and to effectively govern themselves.
While speech can inspire, encourage, and enlighten, it also has a dark side when used to promote distrust, discrimination, oppression, and hatred. While the 1st amendment clearly states that “freedom of speech shall not be abridged,” it is clear that some regulation of speech needs to exist. But too much regulation using the power of the state can lead to totalitarianism. Can we manage “dark” speech appropriately without government slipping into “the dark side?”
A major focus of constitutional law over the past centuries has been around free speech, as well as other core rights enumerated in the first amendment. The courts have tried to avoid any restrictions or regulations based on content. Regulation of speech has been primarily focused on: “time, place and manner restrictions; fighting words; harassment (“heckler’s veto”); sedition and immanent danger; and government speech.
Join us for a discussion the needs and the risks around regulating speech.