Free Speech Forum Mini-Project
After studying the first amendment and the rights it grants you, students were challenged to find a real-life example of free speech and explain how it shows the importance of free speech in our democracy. After researching the piece of free speech, each student gave a presentation to the class about the forum, wrote an essay, and created a visual. This project was designed to explain to students the benefits and limits of free speech. In the honors extension of this project, students were encouraged to dive deeper and examine more complex questions such as how our society would be different if the piece of free speech the student selected did not exist or was not protected by the Constitution.
“The Interview:” Free Speech or a Threat to National Security?
An extremely controversial film called “The Interview” starring James Franco and Seth Rogen is set to release this winter. Franco and Rogen, two talk show hosts, are granted a rare interview with Kim Jong-Un. However, the pair is surprised when the CIA orders them to assassinate Kim Jong-Un during their interview. Franco and Rogen’s characters are not the only people who are shocked at their assignment; in real life, the plot of the movie has personally offended Kim Jong-Un. He declared the film an “act of war” against North Korea and demanded the United States restrict its release. However, in agreement with the protection of free speech, the U.S. government has taken no action to regulate the film, which will premier on Christmas Day, 2014. Although the film is causing tension with North Korea, “The Interview,” is a piece of free speech, which actively contributes to the freedom and democracy of our country.
A democracy is run on the expectation that citizens participate and are given a voice in the government of their country. The ability of democratic countries to thrive is dependent on the existence of the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is arguably the most important right granted to the people by the Constitution as all other rights are written based on the assumption that citizens have the freedom of speech; all of the rights in the first amendment are dependent on the freedom of speech. For example, without the freedom of speech, freedom of the press would be virtually pointless because the people would not be able to voice their opinions at all, let alone through the press. The only words that would be published through the press would belong to the government. The main advantage citizens gain from the right to freedom of speech is the ability to prevent totalitarianism by having a voice and a level of control in our democratic government. In addition, because our freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution, the people of the United States can voice their opinions, no matter how controversial, spread their ideas, and rally followers, without punishment from the government. All of these advantages, and many more, make freedom of speech the most important right to citizens in a democracy.
By permitting the controversial film to be released, despite pushback from North Korea, the United States government is highlighting their respect and dedication to the freedom of speech. “The Interview” represents how the freedom of speech allows expression and shapes the American culture. Many people around the world express their humor and creativity through the film and television business; the restriction of politically controversial movies such as “The Interview” would severely limit their freedom of speech. Possibly more significant than the allowance of humorous and creative expression, however, is that all people are permitted to express their political opinions, no matter how they choose to do this or how controversial their opinions are. For example, the filmmakers of “The Interview” may not be punished for the statement embedded in the assassination of Kim Jong-Un in their movie. Another example of a protected controversial film is “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which was released in 2004 and summarizes Michael Moore’s opinion on the events of 9/11. Moore believed the Bush administration used the tragedy to defend the “unjust” War on Terror. “Fahrenheit 9/11” is listed as the number five most controversial films of the last twenty years according to IMBd. Despite the personal allegations against President Bush, the film still remains as protected free speech in the United States.
Although most speech is protected under the Constitution, there are loopholes in our rights. One of these loopholes is that any free speech, no matter the form, that legitimately threatens the national security of the United States is not protected by the Constitution. Prior restraint is a very limited power of the government to suppress material yet to be published if there is a convincing argument that it is harmful to our national security. In the case that there is material that may threaten our security, the government may suppress it before its release. The government’s power to use prior restraint is designed to protect our country, not to infringe upon our Constitutional rights. The government protects its citizens from truly harmful material and they observe and respect that any actions taken with prior restraint may not be based on personal or political views.
In adherence to our laws, the U.S. seems immune to North Korea’s stern warnings. In a letter to the UN, a North Korean ambassador stated the people of North Korea intend to “mercilessly destroy anyone who dares hurt or attack the supreme leadership of the country even a bit”(Nam). Even though North Korea warned the U.S. the film is “the most blatant act of terrorism and an act of war that we will never tolerate” (Nam), the United States government has yet to take action against “The Interview.” The movie will most likely be monitored after its release and if it has a more severe effect on our national security than expected, the government can still suppress it. Colombia Films can be forced to halt screenings, distribution efforts, and advertisement campaigns. However, these actions are still only considered Constitutional if it can be proved that the media or speech poses a legitimate threat to national security.
In cases such as that of the Pentagon Papers, the government argued they censored the papers to protect national security, and the Supreme Court denied their argument stating they didn’t offer enough evidence to back their argument. While North Korea seems personally offended by the proposal of “The Interview,” it seems there isn’t a significant enough threat to the national security of the United States for the government to prohibit the release of the movie. While it is clear to citizens of the United States that “The Interview” is a comical piece of free speech that contributes to our democracy, confusion persists and anger is bubbling in North Korea.
Works Cited
Editors, IMDb. "Most Controversial Movies of the Past 20 Years." IMDb, 17 Sept. 2010. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
Nam, Ambassador Ja Song. "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism." Letter to United Nations General Assembly Security Council. 27 June 2014. United Nations General Assembly Security Council. United Nations, 27 June 2014. Web. 2 Oct. 2014. <http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/S_2014_451.pdf>.
"Pentagon Papers." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Sept. 2014. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.
Sang-hun, Choe. "North Korea Warns U.S. Over Film Mocking Its Leader." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 June 2014. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.
A democracy is run on the expectation that citizens participate and are given a voice in the government of their country. The ability of democratic countries to thrive is dependent on the existence of the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is arguably the most important right granted to the people by the Constitution as all other rights are written based on the assumption that citizens have the freedom of speech; all of the rights in the first amendment are dependent on the freedom of speech. For example, without the freedom of speech, freedom of the press would be virtually pointless because the people would not be able to voice their opinions at all, let alone through the press. The only words that would be published through the press would belong to the government. The main advantage citizens gain from the right to freedom of speech is the ability to prevent totalitarianism by having a voice and a level of control in our democratic government. In addition, because our freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution, the people of the United States can voice their opinions, no matter how controversial, spread their ideas, and rally followers, without punishment from the government. All of these advantages, and many more, make freedom of speech the most important right to citizens in a democracy.
By permitting the controversial film to be released, despite pushback from North Korea, the United States government is highlighting their respect and dedication to the freedom of speech. “The Interview” represents how the freedom of speech allows expression and shapes the American culture. Many people around the world express their humor and creativity through the film and television business; the restriction of politically controversial movies such as “The Interview” would severely limit their freedom of speech. Possibly more significant than the allowance of humorous and creative expression, however, is that all people are permitted to express their political opinions, no matter how they choose to do this or how controversial their opinions are. For example, the filmmakers of “The Interview” may not be punished for the statement embedded in the assassination of Kim Jong-Un in their movie. Another example of a protected controversial film is “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which was released in 2004 and summarizes Michael Moore’s opinion on the events of 9/11. Moore believed the Bush administration used the tragedy to defend the “unjust” War on Terror. “Fahrenheit 9/11” is listed as the number five most controversial films of the last twenty years according to IMBd. Despite the personal allegations against President Bush, the film still remains as protected free speech in the United States.
Although most speech is protected under the Constitution, there are loopholes in our rights. One of these loopholes is that any free speech, no matter the form, that legitimately threatens the national security of the United States is not protected by the Constitution. Prior restraint is a very limited power of the government to suppress material yet to be published if there is a convincing argument that it is harmful to our national security. In the case that there is material that may threaten our security, the government may suppress it before its release. The government’s power to use prior restraint is designed to protect our country, not to infringe upon our Constitutional rights. The government protects its citizens from truly harmful material and they observe and respect that any actions taken with prior restraint may not be based on personal or political views.
In adherence to our laws, the U.S. seems immune to North Korea’s stern warnings. In a letter to the UN, a North Korean ambassador stated the people of North Korea intend to “mercilessly destroy anyone who dares hurt or attack the supreme leadership of the country even a bit”(Nam). Even though North Korea warned the U.S. the film is “the most blatant act of terrorism and an act of war that we will never tolerate” (Nam), the United States government has yet to take action against “The Interview.” The movie will most likely be monitored after its release and if it has a more severe effect on our national security than expected, the government can still suppress it. Colombia Films can be forced to halt screenings, distribution efforts, and advertisement campaigns. However, these actions are still only considered Constitutional if it can be proved that the media or speech poses a legitimate threat to national security.
In cases such as that of the Pentagon Papers, the government argued they censored the papers to protect national security, and the Supreme Court denied their argument stating they didn’t offer enough evidence to back their argument. While North Korea seems personally offended by the proposal of “The Interview,” it seems there isn’t a significant enough threat to the national security of the United States for the government to prohibit the release of the movie. While it is clear to citizens of the United States that “The Interview” is a comical piece of free speech that contributes to our democracy, confusion persists and anger is bubbling in North Korea.
Works Cited
Editors, IMDb. "Most Controversial Movies of the Past 20 Years." IMDb, 17 Sept. 2010. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
Nam, Ambassador Ja Song. "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism." Letter to United Nations General Assembly Security Council. 27 June 2014. United Nations General Assembly Security Council. United Nations, 27 June 2014. Web. 2 Oct. 2014. <http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/S_2014_451.pdf>.
"Pentagon Papers." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Sept. 2014. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.
Sang-hun, Choe. "North Korea Warns U.S. Over Film Mocking Its Leader." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 June 2014. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.