Teaching Free Speech

Instructions for You

Objective: The courts have recognized that defending free speech is difficult because speech can be powerful. Our history is filled with examples of inspiring oratory, of groups moved to action by words. 

In this exercise your students will examine the challenge of protecting forms of speech that unsettle public order. You might consider coupling this activity with the Case Analysis Activity that explores Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Length of Lesson: One class period.

Materials Needed:

• Overview of Gitlow v. New York
• Quote from Justice Edward Terry Sanford (provided in Step Two below)
• Overview of Terminiello v. City of Chicago
• Quote from Justice William Douglas (provided in Step Four below)

Step One: Check out this brief overview of Gitlow v. New York with your students. 

Step Two: Read and discuss the quote below with your students. It's from the majority opinion in Gitlow which was written by Justice Sanford. You can use the questions that follow to help guide your discussion. 

"Utterances inciting to the overthrow of organized government by unlawful means... by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the State.... A single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that, smoldering for a time, may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration."
- Justice Edward Terry Sanford in Gitlow v. New York, 1925

1. Do you agree with this quote? Can words stir people to violent actions?
2. Identify an example from history in which words incited groups to anger or action. Brainstorm as many examples as you can, listing them on the board as you go. 
3. Do words always have an immediate effect? 
   • Do they sometimes smolder, as suggested in the quote?
   • Does it matter if the reaction is immediate or delayed? 
4. Can a book, a song, or speech contribute to some violent act? In what way?

Step Three: Now look at this brief overview of Terminiello v. City of Chicago with your students. 

Step Four: Read the following quotation from Justice Douglas's ruling in Terminiello with your students and ask them what they think. Again, you can use the questions that follow to guide your discussion. 

"A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."
- Justice William Douglas, in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 1949

1. Do you agree with this quote? Is this true?
2. Is stirring people to anger or inducing unrest an important function of speech?
3. Cite examples from history in which a provocative speech has inspired positive change or action. Again, brainstorm a list and write ideas on the board as you go.

Step Five:  Next ask students to select the quotation that should most shape the court's interpretation of rights of speech.

1. Should the courts be most concerned with the power of speech or its importance? 
2. How much should public peace and safety influence the courts’ response to provocative speech?

Give students 10 minutes to write about the quote they've chosen, using the following questions as a guide. 

• Why should the court's interpretation of rights of speech be more influenced by this quote? 
• What problems could result if the court were to shape its intepretation based on the other quote instead?

Step Six: Take some time to allow students to share and discuss their writings in class. 

(Lesson aligned with CA 12th grade American government standards 12.2.1, 12.2.5, 12.5.1)

Instructions for Your Students

Sure, George R. R. Martin said that, "In the end, words are just wind." 

But words (and wind) can be pretty darned powerful. 

So if someone's words, like an intense wind, were to stir people to anger or provoke them to violence, should the speaker of those words be held responsible? 

• Should she be silenced? 
• Punished?
• Made to apologize or take responsibility for the actions her words inspired?
• Or is the public's reaction to powerful words simply a risk we must take in order to protect free speech?

You will be discussing these questions today and trying to decide how best to balance free speech protections with public welfare and safety.

Step One: Check out this brief overview of Gitlow v. New York with your teacher and classmates. 

Step Two: Now read and discuss the quote below with your teacher and classmates. It's from the majority opinion in Gitlow which was written by Justice Edward T. Sanford. You can use the questions that follow to help guide your discussion. 

"Utterances inciting to the overthrow of organized government by unlawful means... by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the State.... A single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that, smoldering for a time, may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration."
- Justice Edward T. Sanford in Gitlow v. New York, 1925

1. Do you agree with this quote? Can words stir people to violent actions?
2. Identify an example from history in which words incited groups to anger or action. Brainstorm as many examples as you can, listing them on the board as you go. 
3. Do words always have an immediate effect? 
   • Do they sometimes smolder, as suggested in the quote?
   • Does it matter if the reaction is immediate or delayed? Why or why not?
4. Can a book, a song, or speech contribute to some violent act? In what way?

Step Three: Now look at this brief overview of Terminiello v. City of Chicago with your teacher and classmates. 

Step Four: Read the following quotation from Justice Douglas's ruling in Terminiello and discuss it with your teacher and classmates. Again, feel free to use the questions below.

"A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."
- Justice William Douglas, in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 1949

1. Do you agree with this quote? Is this true?
2. Is stirring people to anger or inducing unrest an important function of speech?
3. Cite examples from history in which a provocative speech has inspired positive change or action. Again, brainstorm a list and write ideas on the board as you go.

Step Five:  Now it's time to take a stand. What do you think?

1. Should the courts be most concerned with the power of speech or its importance? 
2. How much should public peace and safety influence the courts’ response to provocative speech?

Choose the quotation you think should most shape the courts’ interpretation of rights of speech. Once you've chosen your quote, take 10 minutes to write about it. Be sure to address the questions below in your writing. 

• Why should the court's interpretation of rights of speech be more influenced by this quote? 
• What problems could result if the court were to shape its intepretation based on the other quote instead?

Step Six: Share your writing (or a portion of it) with your classmates and see what they came up with.