Essay—Do NOT answer the short answer and essay questions that appear on the test. Instead, answer the following question in one of the boxes at the end of the test, in at least 7-10 sentences, providing examples to support your response.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said in his dissent of the Abrams v. US (1919), “I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe (hate)…unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law…”
Why do you think Justice Holmes felt so strongly about protecting speech that we may disagree with (and possibly hate)? Do you agree with Holmes? Why or why not? Please answer in at least 7-10 sentences, providing examples to support your position.
Justice Holmes felt strongly about protecting speech that we may disagree with and even hate because he understood the importance of free expression in a democratic society. He recognized that suppressing opinions we dislike would set a dangerous precedent and potentially lead to the suppression of other ideas in the future. Holmes believed that the only time speech should be restricted is when it poses an immediate and tangible threat to public safety or the functioning of the legal system.
One reason for Holmes’ stance is that he understood that society would benefit from exposure to diverse viewpoints. By allowing a wide range of opinions to be expressed, individuals have the opportunity to engage in debates, challenge their own beliefs, and potentially adopt new perspectives. Holmes recognized that stifling speech we loathe would limit intellectual growth and hinder the progress of society.
Moreover, Holmes believed that suppressing speech we hate could lead to abuses of power. When those in authority are given the ability to determine what speech is acceptable and what is not, they can use this power to silence political opponents or maintain the status quo. Holmes saw this as a threat to democracy and believed that all speech, no matter how offensive, should be protected to prevent such abuses from occurring.
I agree with Justice Holmes because I believe that protecting free speech, even when we disagree with it, is essential for a healthy and functioning democracy. One example of the importance of this principle is the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), where the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader. The court ruled that his speech, although hateful and offensive, did not pose a direct and immediate threat to public safety. This decision demonstrated the court's commitment to upholding the principles of free expression, even in cases where the speech in question is abhorrent.
By protecting speech we hate, we not only safeguard the rights of individuals to express their opinions, but we also create an environment where robust debate and the exchange of ideas can flourish. It is through these conversations that we can challenge our own beliefs, learn from different perspectives, and potentially find common ground. However, it is important to note that there are limitations to free speech, such as when it incites violence or hate speech that targets specific individuals or groups. These restrictions, as Holmes argued, should only be applied in cases when there is an immediate and direct threat.
In conclusion, Justice Holmes' strong belief in protecting speech we may hate stems from his understanding of the importance of free expression in a democratic society. I agree with his stance as it promotes intellectual growth, prevents abuses of power, and allows for the robust exchange of ideas. By allowing all opinions, no matter how loathed they may be, to be expressed, we create a society that values diversity, fosters debate, and upholds the principles of democracy.