Discuss:
- What do you think the Leith community was like before Craig Cobbs moved in?
- What is your impression of Craig Cobbs?
- How do you think a society changes after an experience like this?
- What would you have done if your town had been threatened in a similar way?
- The United States has a very strong focus on individual freedom and individual rights. From what you see in the documentary and from what you already know about the United States, is Cobbs breaking the law at any point?
- The filmmakers are trying to cover both sides of the story. Do you feel they are able to stay objective to everything that takes place?
Class activity:
Step 1: Individual work
Freedom of speech doesn't apply only to the words that come out of your mouth. It also applies to a number of different forms of activities and expressions, such as the display of political or religious symbols, how you choose to dress, political activism, and many other things.
Below you will find a list of hypothetical scenarios that may or may not be in conflict with free speech. Your task is to decide whether or not the government — in your opinion — should have the right to limit or punish the speech contained in the situation. Give each situation a score using the criteria in the box below.
Criteria
1 point: the government cannot limit or punish this type of speech.
2 points: the government can limit or punish this type of speech, but only under very rare conditions.
3 points: you are uncertain, but you see that there are good arguments on both sides.
4 points: the government can usually limit or punish this type of speech.
5 points: the governments can always limit and punish this type of speech.
- A person spreads malicious lies about a politician during an election campaign.
- A person publishes the address and telephone number of a controversial politician, encouraging people to make contact to express their views.
- A person flies a Nazi flag outside his / her home.
- A person burns the nation's flag in protest of government policies.
- A person creates a web page asking people to support an anti-war agenda.
- A person flies a drone over his neighbour's house, taking pictures.
- A person writes and publishes an essay about the superiority of his or her race.
- A person criticises the government on a blog site about public policies.
- A person publishes a video on social media from a party where some of the participants are very drunk.
- A student criticises the principal and teachers on social media.
- A person creates a pro-terrorist website that asks people to join terror groups in order to overthrow the government.
- A student threatens violence against his school on social media.
- A person posts online that someone should assassinate a named politician.
- A person writes a newspaper article expressing his misogynistic and sexist views.
Step 2: Class discussion
Tally your score.
Line up from least restrictive interpretation (lowest total score) in one end of the room, to most restrictive interpretation (highest total score) in the other end of the room. Be prepared to explain your reasoning.
- How open to free speech is your class as a whole?
- How do you compare with your classmates?
- Which of the activities described above spark the most disagreement?
Dig deeper:
Step 1: Find out more about the First Amendment to the American Constitution.
It can be difficult for us to understand why no one stops Craig Cobbs in his attempt to create a white nationalist community in Leith, but the fact of the matter is that most of his actions are protected by the First Amendment to the American Constitution.
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, and they guarantee the civil rights and liberties of the individual. The First Amendment, guaranteeing free speech, is considered to be the most important amendment by most Americans. Also, it is regarded as a very important cornerstone of the American democracy.
Read through the First Amendment and explain what it actually says, using your own words. The Bill of Rights was written in 1789, so the language is a bit old-fashioned.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- There are limitations to the First Amendment. Use the website from Freedom Forum and find out what is not protected by the First Amendment (point 3 on the website): link to Freedom Forum website. Click on each of the ten 'unprotected categories' and make sure you understand what they mean.
Step 2: How is the First Amendment put into practice?
You will sometimes find that one person's right to free speech is in direct violation of someone else's free speech or human rights.
Below, you will find five examples from the United States where people have experienced conflicting views with regards to free speech. Go through the five cases and discuss whether or not you think the person in question was in the right when arguing that he was protected by the First Amendment.
Case 1
In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, looking for a cake to celebrate their upcoming wedding. Jack Phillips, the owner of the cakeshop, told Craig and Mullins he would not make a custom wedding cake for them, because he was against same-sex marriages based on his Christian beliefs. He did, however, offer the couple a selection of other cakes and baked goods. The couple filed a complaint with the state, and the case eventually ended up in the Supreme Court.
Do you think Jake Phillips was in the right when he denied the service based on his religious belief?
Case 1: According to the experts ...
In this particular case, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Colorado baker. This decision was to a large degree based on what the court defined as the 'hostility to religion' that had been expressed towards the baker in this particular case. According to the Supreme Court, “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”
You can read more about this specific case here: https://www.courthousenews.com/dispute-between-gay-couple-and-baker-tests-limits-of-free-speech/
Case 2
In 2018, a Colorado family drew complaints for flying a Nazi flag outside their home. The owner of the house stated it was his right to fly the flag and that he was protected by the First Amendment. He had no intention of taking it down.
Are you allowed to express your political views in this way? In the United States? In other countries?
Case 2: According to the experts ...
In the United States, the public display of Nazi flags is protected by the First Amendment. However, several European countries such as France, Germany, Austria, and Norway (and many others) have restrictions against using Nazi flags in public.
In this article you will find more information about the dispute in Colorado: https://nypost.com/2018/11/09/neighbors-shocked-to-see-nazi-flag-hanging-from-home/
This Vox article will give you a better understanding of the difference in views on the matter between the United States and Europe: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/16/16152088/nazi-swastikas-germany-charlottesville
Case 3
In 2012, 20 children and six adults were killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newton, Connecticut. After this, Alex Jones, an American far-right political extremist, made repeated claims that the shooting was “staged”, “synthetic”, “manufactured”, “a giant hoax” and “completely fake with actors”, with “inside job written all over it”. His statements resulted in the families being subjected to harassment and death threats from Jones' followers.
Do you think outlying opinions and conspiracy theories, regardless of how outrageous, are or should be protected by the First Amendment?
Case 3: According to the experts ...
Alex Jones was sued for defamation by parents of the children who were killed. He was fighting lawsuits both in Connecticut, where the shooting took place, and in Texas, from where he operates. Alex Jones lost both cases.
You can read about the cases here:
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/12/alex-jones-sandy-hook-shooting/
Case 4
In 2015, a teenage boy was arrested by the police after yelling and cursing at three Seattle police officers while they were investigating a disturbance at his house. He called the officers 'pigs', cursed at them repeatedly and refused to leave the officers to do their job.
Do you agree with the boy that he was only exercising his free speech and that he should be protected by the First Amendment?
Case 4: According to the experts ...
According to the Washington Supreme Court, the boy was protected by the First Amendment and was in his right to behave the way he did. According to the judge, “You have a right to observe and criticize the police. Speech doesn’t have to be pretty to be protected.”
You can read more about this case here:
Case 5
In June 2020, 17-year-old Travon Brown, who lives in Marion, Virginia, found a cross burning outside his house. Travon is a black activist who’s been organising anti-racist protests in his home town. The police never found the culprits.
As you probably know, cross burning has been used by the Ku Klux Klan as a form of intimidation against African Americans and Jews and is a symbol of racial hate.
Do you think cross burning is or should be protected by the First Amendment?
Case 5: According to the experts ...
Cross burning has been defended in the courts on free speech grounds. However, in 2003 the United States Supreme Court ruled that individual states can outlaw cross burning without violating free-speech protections in cases where the perpetrator is trying to intimidate or terrorise someone. The state of Virginia has a law specifically prohibiting cross-burning in public spaces or on another person’s property with “the intent to intimidate”.
If the culprit had been identified by the police, he would not have been protected by the First Amendment.
You can read more about this specific case here:
Write:
Task 1:
Write an argumentative text where you discuss to what extent there should be limitations to free speech in society. Present at least three examples where free speech could be in conflict with the law or with people's general understanding of decent behaviour. Remember to refer to your sources in a clear way.
Task 2:
For a long time, Twitter gave former President Donald Trump an uncensored platform where he could express his political views. However, in May 2020 Twitter started to fact check his statements and many of them were marked as 'misleading' or 'unsubstantiated'. Trump answered by launching an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, which states:
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
After right-wing extremists breached Congress to overturn the result of the 2020 Presidential Election on 6. January 2021, most of President Donald Trump's social media accounts were suspended.
Write a text where you discuss the role of social media in societies where free speech is highly valued. Should social media platforms only be 'passive bulletin boards', or do they have a responsibility to fact check or even censor controversial statements? Discuss the consequences of both scenarios.
Task 3:
In recent years, we have seen that people have been reluctant to accept election results they disagree with, for example the 2016 Brexit referendum or the 2020 US presidential election.
Write a text where you discuss what the difference is between acceptable protest and insurrection that will damage democracy. Use relevant sources.