Levin 1

Jordan Levin

English 1B

Professor Gonzales

17 September 2017

Nothing is Free

One of the most important foundations of America is the fact that it was established with

the idea of freedom of speech constantly in mind. Since then, the discussion and debate about

freedom of speech and exactly what it means has ceased to dissipate from Americas political

and social debates. Recently, it has been apparently evident in the global and local news that

freedom of speech and the right to assemble into a peaceful protect is a right that many

Americans are thrilled to exercise. Demonstrators have assembled in Laguna Beach, California

just this last summer to counter-protest an extremist right-wing Neo-Nazi group. Also, as I write

this essay, there are demonstrators risking their freedom and lives protesting in Saint Louis. The

freedom of speech is obviously an important part of every Americans life, however, many

people tend to escalate situations and become violent or disorderly while exercising these rights.

At what point should the government step in and prohibit someones speech? The answer is

simple; the government should prohibit anyones speech that is intended to cause or incite any

harm, violence, or damage to society as a whole (mentally or physically). This law can be easily

enforced through use of common sense, unfortunately something that many laws fail to

incorporate.

Since there are an unlimited amount of scenarios involving when someone should or

should not be denied the right to free speech, it is incredibly difficult to enact a single legislative

bill that takes care of all aspects of the issue. This is why local and federal authorities should be
 Levin 2

allowed to deny someone their freedom of speech at the discretion of their common sense. For

example, anyone that is determined to be using their right to free speech for the purpose of

causing harm should be warned, fined, or jailed; based on severity of the harm they were

attempting to incite. Many democratic nations have already adopted this much more sensible

legislation. For example, there are already 6 European nations, along with Brazil, that have

outlawed the use of Nazi symbols and flags. Opposed to most other nations, there is an

incredibly stark difference in the way that America handles these situations (Rosenbaum). The

extremist right-wing Neo-Nazis that were permitted to assemble in Laguna Beach, California and

Charlottesville, Virginia should have been prohibited, for the simple reason that they are direct

symbols of hate, evil, and destruction.

Unfortunately, and quite obviously, by allowing Neo-Nazi demonstrators to march through

towns, America has done much more harm than good. By exposing society to symbols of evil

and past chaos, Americans are normalizing the behavior of the acceptance of evil. It is incredibly

baffling that the American government permits and allows the existence of Neo-Nazi

demonstrations, and therefore the spread of Nazism. The same mentality that caused a world war

that resulted in the death of 60 million people worldwide; of which 6 million were Jews and

nearly 500,000 Americans (National WWII Museum). Arguably, if the government did prohibit

these extremist groups from demonstrating, there would be an almost certain and instant

retaliation of free speech advocates across the nation. In 1977, the Supreme Court rule in the

favor of a Neo-Nazi group to march through a town with a high population of Holocaust

survivors (Rosenbaum). Although these demonstrators were not being disorderly or trying to

start a riot, their main purpose was to emotionally traumatize and intimidate the Holocaust
 Levin 3

survivors. Simply put, Americans should vote on an amendment to the constitution that denies

the right to free speech in the case that it is used to cause or incite emotional or physical harm.

Another reason that the freedom of speech should be blocked for those who are intending

on inciting or causing harm

To Americans, these actions in France and Israel seem positively un-democratic. The First

Amendment would never prohibit the quenelle, regardless of its symbolic meaning. And any

lover of Seinfeld would regard banning the Soup Nazi episode as scandalously un-American.

After all, in 1977 a federal court upheld the right of neo-Nazis to goose-step right through the

town of Skokie, Illinois, which had a disproportionately large number of Holocaust survivors as

residents. And more recently, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a church group opposed to

gays serving in the military to picket the funeral of a dead marine with signs that read, God

Hates Fags.

Actually, the United States is an outlier among democracies in granting such generous free

speech guarantees. Six European countries, along with Brazil, prohibit the use of Nazi symbols

and flags. Many more countries have outlawed Holocaust denial. Indeed, even encouraging

racial discrimination in France is a crime.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-

starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war

Rosenbaum, Thane. Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech? The Daily Beast, The Daily
 Levin 4

Beast Company, www.thedailybeast.com/should-neo-nazis-be-allowed-free-speech