part 2---Blog Post: Eight Values of Free Expression-Protect Dissent

I believe the most important value of underlining the First Amendment is protecting dissent. As Steve Shiffrin explains in (dissent Injustice and the Meetings of America), "the United States was not designed to operate as a system of mob rule but where majority opinion automatically prevails overall." Instead, the First Amendment exists to protect minority viewpoints, particularly those that challenge government authority or widely accepted beliefs. Dissent is not permitted in American democracy; it is essential to its survival. 

In simpler terms, dissent refers to the expression of ideas that oppose current political,  social, or cultural norms. We can see throughout American history that dissenting speech has been the driving force behind major social change. For example, movements advocating for the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, and marriage all began as unpopular, controversial viewpoints in the early days of our country's history. At the time, these changes to “dissenter's” were often criticized as unpatriotic or even dangerous. Now in modern-day history we recognize their speech as morally necessary because without the First Amendment protection, these voices could have been silenced before they were able to make a change. That's why I believe this is the most valuable example of free expression: without being able to use our voices as Americans, we might still have some of these things today.

In doing my research, I have found that the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that dissenting speech deserves strong constitutional protection. An example I found very interesting was in Texas v. Johnson (1989), in which the court held that burning the American flag as a form of political protest was protected speech under the First Amendment. Although many Americans find the act offensive, as do I. The court emphasized that the government may not prohibit expression simply because society finds it distasteful. Which means that even if people disagree with the way somebody is showing their freedom of speech, it cannot simply be taken away because the public does not agree with it. I think that this case illustrates the principle that protecting dissent often means protecting speech that challenges deeply held morals. 

In another similar case, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that even extremist speech is protected unless it is proven to be the outcome of violence. The decision overturned the conviction of the Ku Klux Klan leader, reinforcing the idea that the government cannot suppress speech based solely on its content or potential to offend citizens. While the views expressed in this incident were widely condemned, the ruling underscored the importance of protecting dissent to prevent government overreach and censorship. 

Since there is more temptation to squash disagreement during times of civil unrest or national emergency, protecting dissent is particularly important. History shows that attempts to silence dissent, such as those during World Wars or the Cold War, frequently lead to later-regretted abuses of civil liberties. By guaranteeing that criticism of governmental policy is still permitted, the First Amendment serves as a barrier against these feelings.

In the end, the idea that democracy depends on free discussion rather than coerced obedience is reflected in the value of defending dissent. Dissent forces people to face injustice, challenge authority, and reevaluate conventional wisdom. The First Amendment maintains the potential for advancement and reiterates that criticizing the government is not disloyal but rather a basic civic duty by safeguarding even the most controversial speech.