America's Love Affair With Conditional Freedom of Speech

Written By: Maria Victoria Almarza

Opinion Column

(Maria Victoria Almarza/StoryBytes)

Jan. 19, 2026

MIAMI – “Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.” 

– Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1943

In March of 1943, the Supreme Court of the United States made a landmark decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, and overruled Minersville School District v. Gobits. When asked if schools could demand children salute the flag, or if that was a violation of their First Amendment rights, the Court chose the latter. At present, the answer might seem simple. In a country that was in the midst of World War II, it was not so clear cut. To many Americans then, and some today, the First Amendment rights to freedom of expression should be regulated. Therefore, I cannot help but wonder: why is a country founded on liberty of expression so resolute on congruence? 

(Frances Benjamin Johnston/Wikimedia Commons)

My mind immediately goes to hate speech when I think of restricting freedom of expression. In the past, I used to be upset that the government did not penalize people with racist and eugenic views. I saw Germany criminalizing Nazi salutes and wondered why, in America, people could still be proud members of the KKK. They, to me, were all murderers. Their rights to freedom of expression ended when they discriminated and committed violence against marginalized groups. My government professor challenged this. 

In class, he asked us what the definition of hate speech was, and who got to decide. Suddenly, I understood the dangers of restricting any form of speech within our system of government. Hate speech in a government that shares my values might include the Klan’s perspective. However, in a government that shares the Klan’s values, my critique of them might qualify as hate speech. The people in power could criminalize dissent and shift the country from democratic to authoritarian. This is an extremist example, of course, and we can all hope the government never aligns with the KKK. However, if the majority aligned with these extremist views, would it be constitutionally possible to be an extremist country?

(Jason Leung/Unsplash)

Because the public elects officials to represent them, a government aligned with the KKK’s extremist views would technically be a reflection of the people. In this hypothetical, the majority of Americans align to some extent with the Klan’s values. Therefore, one could argue minority rights would prevent extremism in government. There are systems and legislation in place to protect minorities, such as the senate within the Legislative branch and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. However, the senate only needs a majority, not consensus, to pass bills. Senators who have personal agendas might vote in favor of some extremist legislation even if it harms their constituents. In regards to Constitutional protections, the Supreme Court has had a history of narrow interpretation of the law in favor of extremist views. For example, the government denied Black citizens the right to vote even after the 15th Amendment was ratified. In United States v. Reese, the Court held that the Amendment did not give the right to vote, only protected being denied said right on the basis of race. So, in this hypothetical scenario, the legislative, judicial, and executive branches could all legally become aligned with extremist views. I am not sure to what extent, as the KKK has a variety of different beliefs and the government could integrate them in semi-subtle ways. But personally, despite these and other limitations (lower courts, state legislature, etc.), I believe the limits of our government could be stretched far enough to have a constitutional extremist country. Just because something is immoral does not mean that it is undemocratic or unconstitutional. Just because something is technically constitutional and democratic, does not mean it is fair. 

(Elena Mozhvilo/Unsplash)

The framers intentionally made the wording in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights vague. It was for future generations to mold as they saw fit; a guide, not instructions. But what happens when injustice is legalized through their words and creation? Are there certain laws that should not be malleable? The federal government seems to have the ability to choose whichever interpretation of the Constitution is more convenient. Shortly after the 14th Amendment was ratified, and the Jim Crow era began, it claimed the Amendment protected Black citizens from discrimination by the government, not other people. And so I ask, how can America protect its people when it does not agree on who the people are? How can it protect freedom of expression, if it does not know what it means? How can we be a unified nation when we have no clue what the nation even is? This lack of clarity is harmful, but it can also be good. Vagueness in our Constitution makes it possible to have laws that limit freedom of expression, but also ones that protect against said limits. It allowed the Jim Crow era to exist, but gave room for Black leaders to bring it to an end and, in the process, achieve incredible things. The United States was born a paradox, and although it causes violence and chaos, it also brings about innovation and beauty.

Government infringement on freedom of expression should not be allowed, even if, at times, I wished it was. Ultimately, it brings with it too many risks. Yet, risks have always been a part of the American experiment. The country was founded by federalists and antifederalists; the first feared the tyranny of the uneducated majority, the latter feared the tyranny of the elitist minority. When they created our system of government, they took a risk on the realization of their fears. I think they both came true. Throughout history, America has had a majority choose their vote based on propaganda or emotion rather than truth or values. It has also had a minority manipulate the government with wealth and connections, disregarding the people’s lives. However, I selfishly find the push and pull between these groups fascinating and exciting. It brings with it endless possibilities, and I have hope that a better future is one of them.