blog 2

How has your interpretation of the First Amendment and freedom of speech in America changed?
Because of my education at Seattle University and more specifically studying the Westboro Baptist Church, I have widened my perimeters of what I feel should be protected under freedom of speech. This may seem counterintuitive, but I basically feel that if someone is not causing direct harm or suggesting harm, then they are pretty much free to say what they want. The aforementioned statement is, of course, somewhat generalized because of brevity necessary for this blog. When I was younger I felt that most opposing views from my own should be banned, which, I’m sure, had much to do with immaturity. Now I can respect the views of others and feel that they should be protected like I am.
The line should be drawn, however, when harm is suggested or resulted from the words of another. If, for instance, the Westboro Baptist Church folks carried guns and threatened people then they should not be allowed to protest. Secondly, even if they did not directly inflict harm, but suggested it, then they should not be allowed freedom of speech. Yes, some could hear their words and become angry toward the intended audience, but they are not suggesting it, thus placing them under freedom of speech.
Spatial perimeters should be considered when protests are imminent. Yes, this would allow a peaceful protest, but would also protect those such as grieving families. The Westboro Baptist Church often directs their protests at funerals of fallen military personnel because they feel that homosexuality is somehow related to their death. Whatever the case, the grieving family has every right to grieve without the intrusion of opposing words and signage.

Do you think the first Amendment protects us enough or does it leave too much room for government interpretation that might actually restrict our freedom of speech?
I think that it protects us enough most of the time. Even more than laws, social norms come into play here because many outrageous people would be shut down by the public or police officers because of indecency or another socially unacceptable reason. We, the public, have a lot of say in what is and is not acceptable. Citizens of communities do not like it when people cause harm or unnecessary negative attention toward themselves. Again, if someone acts outside social norms, they are often stopped by general citizens.