Florida’s Republican Lieutenant Governor Jay Collins has ignited a firestorm over free speech after making remarks that many constitutional scholars and civil liberties advocates say flatly contradict the First Amendment.
At the center of the controversy is a statement Collins made publicly, now widely circulated and replayed across social media:
“You do not have a right to hurt people with your words.”
In extended remarks from the same appearance, Collins went further, arguing that certain speech should fall outside constitutional protection:
“You don’t have the right to harm people with your words, and you don’t have the right to say things that have really negative, really horrible meanings. When you want people to destroy a nation, that’s not protected.”
Those words — spoken by Florida’s second-highest elected official — alarm free-speech advocates because they suggest that government officials, not courts or the Constitution, should decide which political speech is acceptable.
Why Collins’ Words Clash With the First Amendment
The First Amendment does not protect speech because it is polite, kind, or emotionally safe. It protects speech precisely because it is controversial, offensive, unsettling, or deeply unpopular.
Under U.S. constitutional law, the government may restrict speech only in extremely narrow circumstances: true threats, direct incitement to imminent violence, or similarly well-defined exceptions. Political speech — including harsh criticism of governments, nations, ideologies, or public officials — sits at the very core of what the First Amendment protects.
“Hurtful” speech is not illegal. Speech with “negative meanings” is not illegal. Political speech calling for radical change — even the dismantling of governments — has repeatedly been ruled protected by U.S. courts.
When a sitting lieutenant governor suggests otherwise, it raises serious constitutional red flags.
Supreme Court Rulings That Directly Contradict Collins’ Claim
The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the idea that speech loses protection simply because it causes emotional harm, offense, or outrage.
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), the Court ruled that speech may not be punished simply because it “stirs people to anger” or creates unrest. The Court held that free speech exists precisely to invite dispute and discomfort.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court set the modern standard for incitement, ruling that even inflammatory political speech is protected unless it is intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action. Abstract advocacy — even of violence or revolution — remains protected.
In Cohen v. California (1971), the Court overturned the conviction of a man who wore a jacket reading “F*** the Draft,” ruling that government cannot ban speech simply because it is offensive or upsetting. The Court famously stated that “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.”
In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court held that burning the American flag — an act many view as deeply offensive and hurtful — is protected political speech. Emotional harm to observers was explicitly rejected as a justification for suppression.
In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Court ruled that even cruel, hateful protest speech targeting grieving families is protected when it involves matters of public concern. The emotional pain inflicted did not erase constitutional protection.
Taken together, these rulings draw a bright constitutional line: the government may not punish speech simply because it hurts, offends, or angers others.
The Dangerous Logic Behind ‘You Can’t Say That’
Collins’ framing relies on an emotionally appealing but legally hollow idea: that speech loses protection if someone claims it causes harm.
That logic, if adopted by government, would erase the First Amendment in practice.
Every major civil-rights movement in American history — abolition, labor rights, women’s suffrage, civil rights, anti-war protest — was condemned in its time as harmful, dangerous, or offensive. Officials routinely claimed that such speech threatened public order or injured social cohesion.
The Constitution was written precisely to stop those in power from silencing dissent under the banner of “harm.”
This Isn’t Just Rhetoric — It’s Power Talking
Jay Collins isn’t a private citizen arguing philosophy. He is a top state official with influence over law enforcement priorities, public policy, and political messaging. His words matter because they signal how power views dissent.
Even without proposing a specific censorship law, normalizing the idea that Americans “do not have a right” to say certain political words lays the groundwork for suppression — especially when paired with existing efforts nationwide to penalize protest, boycott movements, and controversial political advocacy.
Free speech does not erode overnight. It erodes when officials redefine it as a privilege granted by those in authority.
Free Speech Is Not Conditional
You do not need government permission to speak.
You do not need official approval to offend.
You do not lose constitutional rights because someone claims emotional injury.
The Supreme Court has been unambiguous: offense is not a constitutional exception.
When elected leaders begin suggesting otherwise, the response should be immediate and unequivocal — because once speech becomes conditional, freedom becomes optional.
No comments:
Post a Comment