The United States of America was founded on several key principles that were deemed fundamental to a free government. Many of these principles were addressed in the Declaration of Independence, with the colonists claiming that the King of England had violated these principles, thus leaving them no choice but to separate themselves from the rule of Great Britain. These principles include, but are not limited to, civil liberties or unalienable rights, life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution was then established in order to protect these principles as well as dictate how much the government could act to restrict or regulate these principles, if at all.

Since the establishment of the Constitution, there have been many cases where threats have arisen, putting these essential principles at stake. Sometimes these threats have been deliberate, while other times they have been unforeseen consequences. Either way, the government has a responsibility to mitigate or at least deter these threats in order to preserve the foundation of the Constitution and secure the "Blessings of Liberty."

One such principle that is continuously threatened is the first civil liberty discussed in the Bill of Rights: free speech. According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law…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." The speech clause guarantees American citizens the freedom to speak without fear of censorship by the government for any reason. In recent years, though, the “political correctness” movement has grown to possibly pose a threat to free speech.

As defined in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, political correctness is conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated. Commonly called PC culture, the exercise of this idea has increased over the years to focus primarily on creating “safer” environments for groups that have historically faced verbal abuse and derogation. While the Constitution does aim to insure "domestic Tranquility" and citizens should be entitled to feeling “safe” within their domestic borders, the application of political correctness in the law could consequently severely limit the civil liberties enumerated in the First Amendment.

The main goal behind political correctness is to drastically lower the rate of hate crimes committed in America. Hate crimes can generally be defined as crimes such as harassment, assault, and damage to property based on a belief regarding the victim’s race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. A report by the Anti-Defamation League showed that in 2007, a hate crime was committed in America for every hour of the day, all year long. The reason this number is so high is because harsh and hateful rhetoric have now been used as a basis for a hate crime. The government responded to this high number of hate crimes being committed by passing the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The ultimate objective behind this legislation was to provide funding and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to help them to more effectively investigate and prosecute hate crimes. While the intentions of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 were sound and understandable, it created a new approach to free speech. As a result, citizens were limiting their free speech out of fear of being accused of a hate crime. With this unintended effect, legislation of similar intent could spiral out of control and limit rights protected by the First Amendment.

There are, however, some people that believe that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act and other federal and state interference to prevent hateful speech, is a step in the right direction. In an article published by TIME Magazine titled, “Political Correctness Is An Absolute Must”, author Mark Hannah argues that: “Political correctness is a longstanding American tradition and a deeply rooted value. Our country’s founders placed a premium on the ability to persuasively articulate opposing viewpoints. They rejected government censorship precisely because they trusted individuals could and would regulate themselves in our proverbial ‘free marketplace of ideas.’” Hannah goes on to say that “people who use politically correct language aren’t trying to stifle insensitive speech. They’re simply trying to out-compete that speech in a free and open exchange.” While Hannah may be correct about not using political correctness as a way to limit free speech, past Supreme Court decisions reject the notion that political correctness is a longstanding American value.

Since the establishment of the Supreme Court, there have been several landmark cases that define the limitations of the federal government on free speech. These cases also hint at how federal intervention of political correctness can possibly inhibit free speech. A couple of these cases include R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). In the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, there were several teenagers accused of burning a cross on a black family’s lawn. One of the teens was arrested under an ordinance that prohibited symbols that arouse resentment towards others based on their race, color, religion, or gender. The Supreme Court, in response, answered the question, is the ordinance overly broad and impermissibly content-based in violation of the First Amendment free speech clause? The court ruled that the ordinance was invalid and that the First Amendment prevents governments from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. Political correctness is a threat to the principle upheld in this case because it aims to punish those who express views that the government (or society in general) disapproves of, which is completely opposite of what the Supreme Court intended in this ruling.

In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, a KKK member was arrested and convicted under an Ohio law that made it illegal to advocate crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform. The court’s ruling helped answer the question whether or not Ohio’s law violated free speech that is protected in the First and Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that speech can be prohibited if it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and it is "likely to incite or produce such action". PC culture affects this ruling by trying to include offensive or “hate speech” as speech inciting lawless action.

While it is not impossible for perceived “hate speech” to incite hate crimes, the culture of political correctness has moved in a direction where the government and its subsequent possible leaders (i.e.: political candidates) are treating speech they disagree with as hate speech and are aiming to limit this speech in order to establish tolerance and peace. As mentioned, the Supreme Court has already ruled that free speech trumps the offensiveness of speech or expression. With the current trend in culture, though, a time could arise where political correctness takes precedence over free speech. For this reason, continuous unmonitored federal intervention with political correctness could possibly threaten and end the fundamental principle of free speech in America.