ThePresident of the University,
Theright to make a free speech and times when such freedom can belimited is quite controversial. I am writing you to request you toallow the leader of the white supremacist to make the speech asrequested by the student union. As you are aware, the right to speakand express oneself is protected by the First Amendment and can onlybe limited under three circumstances as considered below.
Itis undeniable that the right to the freedom of speech is guaranteedby the constitution. Although this right is limited to severalcircumstances, the offended parties should prove three major facts asprovided in different decisions made by the Supreme Court. First, itmust be proven that the alleged speed could possibly result in bodilyharm to the targeted individuals. In the case of Virginiav. Black, 2003,the white youths was prohibited from cross-burning outside theresidents of the black families by the state of Virginia. The SupremeCourt overturned the state’s decision, citing that it denied theyouths their rights to the freedom of speech and expression asprovided for by the First Amendment (Oyez 1). The court ruled thatthe speech can only be considered to be illegal or unconstitutionalif it inspires the fear of bodily harm. In the case of the whitesupremacist speaker, there is no sufficient evidence the leader’sspeech will inspire bodily harm.
Secondly,it should be proven that the ordinance issued to prohibit someonefrom making a speech is specific and points out how the speech islikely to violate the constitution. In R.A.Vv. City of St. Paul, 1992,St. Paul Bias Motivated Crime Ordinance prohibited the use of symbolsthat could arouse anger against certain group on the basis of theircolor, gender, race, or religion (Cornell University Law School 2).The Supreme Court decided that the unconstitutionality of the hatespeech could be assessed on the mode of expression, and not thecontent of the speech. In the case of the white supremacists, thereare no sufficient grounds to prove that the mode of expression willresult in hate violence since the supremacist has been invited to aformal gathering and will deliver the speech to attendees in anorganized meeting. Therefore, the supremacists should be permitted tohonor the invitation and the speech since such a move is protected bythe First Amendment.
Third,it should be proven clearly the white supremacists speech will resultin substantial discourse if he is allowed to make at the University.In the case of Snyderv. Phelps, 2011,the Supreme Court held that one’s freedom to express or speechtheir minds could not be prohibited as long as such a speech orexpression’s contribution to a given public discourse will benegligible (Alito 1). Consequently, the court held that the membersof the church had the right to picket and make their expressionssince the contribution towards the public discourse was considered tobe negligible. Similarly, the contribution of the supremacist’sspeech is likely to make a negligible contribution to the discourse,which means that the leader of the group should be allowed to makethe speech at the campus.
Inconclusion, the freedom of an individual or a group to express itselfthrough acts or speech is protected by the constitution as well asdecisions made by judges of the Supreme Court. Any decision toprevent a certain group to make a speech or express itself should bebased on substantial evidence showing that the speech will result inbodily harm, arouse hate violence, or make a significant contributiontowards the public discourse.
Alito,J. Facts and case summary: Snyder v. Phelps. UnitedStates Courts.2 March. 2011. Web. 16 October 2015.
CornellUniversity Law School. R.A.V v. City of St. Paul. CornellUniversity Law School.2015. Web. 16 October 2015.
Oyez.Help make the work of the Supreme Court of the United Statesaccessible to everyone: Virginia v. Black. Oyez.2015. Web. 16 October 2015.