I was listening to a podcast this morning and typed up a short synopsis I have to share with my AP Government class, but I wanted to talk about it some more on this forum.
Almost everyday, the typical American encounters some form of conflicting rights. That’s American life now. One of the most frequently brought up issues regarding this is the First Amendment, which grants Americans the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the government. The podcast begins with the speaker talking about the recent case called Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled that it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to make laws prohibiting corporations and unions from spending money tied to federal elections. This discussion led to the presentation of a previous debate answering the question, “Should the government do more to limit free speech?” Two opposing arguments ensue regarding the standards of the First Amendment, one argument saying that we should basically nip hate speech in the bud before it evolves into actual violence…the other saying that nipping in the bud can lead to abuse of power within America. The next conversation asks whether or not corporations should do more to limit the First Amendment. One side says that such control is dangerous, merely a simple solution to a complex problem. The other side says that lack of censorship allows hate groups to organize and radicalize online.