Viewpoint Discrimination Essay Example

People dislike many things. It’s in our nature. Some people do not like slang, or swearing, or hearing the offensive language. In a landmark decision by the United States Supreme court, the court ruled that offensive language was protected under the first amendment. As many people look to the first amendment to see what language or iconography should be allowed, a notable example comes up. With many sports teams having seemingly offensive team names or mascots, is this protected under your constitutional right to freedom of speech? To fully understand this problem, we need to understand what viewpoint discrimination is, how regulations have been put on a similar subject: speech, and if the same regulations should be put on a viewpoint and viewpoint discrimination as well (and if their flags/ mascots should change.).

What is viewpoint discrimination, put simply, it is giving offense to a viewpoint. When a government intervenes, it then puts criminal offense on that viewpoint. Many people oppose this kind of regulation because it is essentially the government taking sides choosing what views its citizens can hold. However, there are some ideas that can be very dangerous. For example, Natzies believe that they are superior to their Jewish counterparts. While it is universally accepted that these views are wrong, there is still a chance for another Nazi rise to power, and another horrific genocide of Jews and other “inferior” people. This is harmful in many ways, notably because it can lead to discrimination.

The topic of freedom of speech is very similar to the ideas within the arguments for viewpoint discrimination. In the United States, there are many things that are not covered by the first amendment. In an article by Laura Beth Nielsen, she writes that “...local, state, and federal laws limit all kinds of speech.” She goes on to give the scope of the places where the government limits speech, like inciting lawless action or causing harm. In a classic example, yelling fire in a movie theater is against the law because if someone is injured by your statement, they could legally sue you. While our freedom of speech covers physical harm, it does little to relieve people of the stress they feel when being called slurs on the street. This is because the constitution prioritizes physical protection, and rarely takes into account the emotional damage that can be endured. Thane Rosenbaum writes in the Daily Beast, “recent studies in universities such as Purdue, UCLA, Michigan, Toronto, Arizona, Maryland, and Macquarie University in New South Wales, show, among other things… that emotional harm is equal in intensity to that experienced by the body, and is even more long-lasting and traumatic.” While our laws only protect us from physical harm, it is very difficult to make fair and equal laws that

So, would regulate viewpoint discrimination work like limiting speech in America? Not exactly. In order to ban or limit seemingly offensive symbols, slogans and mascots, we would have to show that they somehow cause direct harm to people or a group of people. This is very hard to prove because having an offensive symbol on a team flag hurts anyone. While a limit to freedom of speech is put on the physical, the government would have to regulate viewpoint discrimination based on feelings. If people, or a group of people, feel offended by a particular company symbol, the government will be compelled to force the removal of the image. This gives lots of power to a very small group of people. If they find anything offensive, the government will do its best to remove it. This could be used for political gain. If you can convince a small subset the iconography of the other party is offensive, you can force the government to essentially change your opposing political party.