Tuesday, October 1, 2019
The Importance of Intent
In class the past few days, we have focused primarily on the freedom of expression case studies, discussing if and when one’s freedom of expression can be violated. It seems to me that the consensus for the issues discussed throughout the three cases – “Fox v. Franken,” “Prussian Blue,” and “Dark Side of the Internet” – pointed to the same conclusion that the outcome and intent of the expression determines its protection under the 1st Amendment. In the case of Prussian Blue, the girls’ music was intended to spread and express a belief about race and was not created with the direct intent of violence, despite its dangerous rhetoric. The girls are protected under the 1st Amendment because their music did not cause “clear or present danger.” In other words, the outcome of their expression did not directly infringe on the rights of others. However, the outcome of expression’s influence can’t be the sole determinant because of misinterpretation. If someone makes a joke online that uses satirical violent rhetoric and someone interprets it as sincere, takes it to heart, and carries it out, that joke becomes an unexpected danger. While sometimes it may be obvious that intent is satirical or malicious, there are still significant issues that arise with proving the intent of expression. In the case of the “Dark Side of the Internet” it’s arguable that the website stormfront.org did not intend to murder 9 innocents by influencing Dylan Ruth, however such severe, aggressive rhetoric increases the likelihood of inciting violence. So where should the line be drawn? I think that ultimately, the intent of expression coupled with its outcome is the true determiner behind a form of expression being Constitutionally valid. According to the Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, any speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action” is not protected under the 1st Amendment(Source). So it seems that “direction” or intent of unlawful or dangerous action is the primary component for determining if a form of expression is protected by law. Overall, I think that these limitations on the 1st Amendment are not only valid but essential for ensuring the liberties of the people, and while there may still be pressing issues of expression creating violence, I don’t feel there can be any additional limitation on the freedom of expression without infringing upon Constitutional rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you about the need to protect free speech, because we cannot simply censor what we disagree with. However, one thing about intent seems counterproductive to me. After doing some research (https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/hate-speech-is-often-free-speech-but-how-can-we-stop-it/), it seems that it is protected by the first Amendment if an alt right says something that refers to a larger group of people. By this, I mean they can discuss the death of a race, but when discussing the same ideas but instead when targeted to individuals, it is not protected. I think that this is a good distinction because, while it is hard to tell actual intent, it is far more likely that fighting words will turn to actions when there is a reasonable target. Therefore, I do believe that not protecting language specifically with the intent of violence against an individual is justified, and it has allowed police to step in and deal with threats, rather than having to wait for violence to unfold.
ReplyDeleteThe article presents a really interesting and critical idea to the whole concept of intent. I completely agree that the distinction of specificity within a threat is an important tool to use when trying to determine someone's true intent. While general words that may imply violence are still protected, specific, targeting words of threatening nature are not protected and can even result in legal action against the individual who said them. However, there are still issues that arise with the hate speech protected by the 1st Amendment. The article brings up the argument that psychological damage and stifled democratic debate due to sensitive topics can result from hate speech. Yet, it still holds that free speech is of high value in the US. How can we reconcile these contradictory rights, legally or socially?
Delete