CMJR 494 FINAL Blog Post

After reading many-a-Supreme Court decision, and reviewing this quarters' materials and blogs various times, I have come to the conclusion that my opinion has tended to lean toward 1st amendment protections, but truly has depended on the specific case. Like the Supreme Court has done throughout history, I have applied different levels of scrutiny to each case.
In most circumstances, I stuck with the decision to only punish speech when it harms. However, when it came to child protection, I decided less scrutiny was necessary in order to prevent future harm.
I found myself wanting to punish/prosecute certain people that went beyond what I personally believe is incorrect behavior, but quickly learned in this class that personal beliefs do not hold superiority over applications of the amendments' protections. Franklyn S. Haiman summed this problem up the best when he said that respect for the rights of minorities "does not come naturally to most people, [for] there are powerful herd instincts constantly impelling majorities to suppress the deviants in their midst." Therefore, I often went against my first instincts, and decided to instead protect those that were testing the boundaries of free speech.
The philosophy I most commonly agreed with was that of Emerson. I agreed with his expression- action theory, which protects expression while allowing for constraints on action. I believe this is the epitome of the First Amendment: expression should be protected at lengths, but once expression crosses over into the physical action, different scrutiny must then be applied. This can clearly be seen in many of the threat cases (nooses, crosses, etc).
Politically, I did not have a consistent case to reference to in many of my decisions, it fluctuated with each problem that was presented. I guess I could just say as far as my politics, that I am only consistent on the most basic ground: free speech is necessary for democratic government.
Finally, as it is apparent now from the inconsistencies above, I did not tend to rely on a free speech for ____ theory. But looking back, I would say that ideally, I would have used the free-speech-for-truth approach, even though I do believe that free speech is essential to personal self fulfillment.
I learned a lot about where I stand on political issues and how important I hold interpretation of the law. I think more than anything, I learned the most about the necessity of open-mindedness. Restrictions of speech in the past (on women, slaves, religious speech) have shown me that valuing protection over restriction is what will allows for a true democracy.