Many people in our modern society question how the constitution that we abide by could still be valid to us over 200 years after its initial signing. Though some amendments seem a bit dated, I'm looking at you third amendment, I think we can all agree on one that will always be relevant, the first amendment. There's a reason why it's the first amendment. No matter how modern a society gets, the concept of free speech will always be required. Some aspects of the constitution do need to be changed as the society grows. That's the reason the constitution has been updated so many times since its initial ratification. The one amendment that needs little to no editing throughout the years is the first amendment. Though I would be classified as a progressive when dealing with the constitution and truly believe it should change as the people abiding by it do, I strongly believe in preservation of the first amendment.
The main problem with limiting freedom of speech is how far one takes it. The explanation that someone “offended” you by what they said might make sense in the schoolyard when the mean bully calls you a name, but not in the real world. People are far too sensitive. There’s no way to limit freedom of speech so you don’t “offend” anyone because that’s entirely subjective! In the film Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech, Ward Churchill, a tenured professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado, was fired after posting a “controversial” piece on 9/11. The main reason this piece he wrote was “frowned upon” was because it was written too soon after 9/11. America had not gotten over the great tragedy yet. In his piece Churchill alluded to the fact that America may have been “asking for it” when 9/11 occurred. The most astonishing fact is, the University of Colorado interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano stated, “While Professor Churchill has the constitutional right to express his political views, his essay on 9/11 has outraged and appalled us and the general public." DiStefano knows that what Churchill was doing was completely legal and yet still chooses to punish him.
The idea that one person’s speech is limited due to other people’s feelings is a bit ridiculous. One of the greatest things about America, besides all the fried food, is its vast amounts of freedom it gives its citizens. The first amendment explicitly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 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.” How can you read this, understand it’s in our constitution, and still argue for restriction of free speech? Breaking the constitution is illegal. Limiting freedom of speech is illegal. What argument is greater than that?
