Death by Texting: the Michelle Carter Case & Free Speech

In 2014, 17-year-old Michelle Carter encouraged her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III, to commit suicide over text. Today, Carter seeks a verdict from the highest court in the nation. 

Two weeks prior to his death, Roy exhibited signs of severe depression and debated whether he should kill himself. On numerous occasions, Carter persuaded Roy that he should go through with it -- never once seeking help for Roy or telling one of his family members.  

July 12, 2014, was the night Roy and Carter planned for his death to occur. He parked in a Kmart parking lot in Fairhaven, Massachusetts and began to breathe in carbon monoxide emissions from his car. Before the situation turned fatal, Roy doubted his decision and jumped out. Carter coaxed him to “get back in” to the car and finish the job through text messages. 

The case Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter began at a Massachusetts Juvenile Court in 2017, where Carter was found guilty of manslaughter because of the incriminating messages. Her defense team applied for Supreme Court review in July of this year. In a briefing with the press, Carter’s lawyers argue that her right to free speech under the First Amendment shields her from criminal responsibility because her involvement was limited to “words alone,” says the Washington Post. 

However, words, not just actions, are crimes. As established in Brandenburg in 1969, speech “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” could be punished by the State because they “had a tendency to lead to violence.” It was Carter’s words that incited Roy’s suicide that day. Her texts and phone calls produced imminent lawless action. Had she not convinced him to get back into that car, a life may not have been taken. 

In my opinion, it is fairly evident that Carter's free speech should not be protected. While she may not have threatened Roy or committed violent acts against him, her words incited his death. Carter’s actions should be treated no differently than Brandenburg, who was found guilty for his destructive speech. 

A case over 200 years ago called the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Bowen dealt with a similar issue of pressured suicide. The defendant attempted to convince the person in the prison cell next to him, Bowen, to commit suicide. In this case, the court decided that procuring a suicide “by advice or otherwise” may constitute a homicide and the defendant should be held accountable. Even if she had texted Roy rather than coercing him in person, the same should be said for Carter. 

According to the famous quote stated by English author Edward Bulwer-Lytten, “the pen is mightier than the sword.” Whether there really is a pen or just text messages, words coerced a death on July 12, 2014. Michelle Carter should be held accountable because her speech effectively put Conrad Roy in his carbon monoxide-filled car that night. 

The New York Times describes this unfortunate event as "a miserable glimpse at lives playing out via technology". One revolutionary aspect of this case is that it points out the huge gray area between a technology-forward generation and the law. It ultimately raises questions of where we draw the line of criminal action when it comes to the internet, social media, and text messages. With the recent HBO documentary and years of publicity on this case, hopefully it will shed some light on the outdated laws that need to be revised to fit our modern era, particularly with free speech and technology.

Riot Booting Act and the NDN Collective

The rights of protestors are supposed to be protected by the First Amendment under the freedom of assembly. However, there are certain groups have been directly impacted by laws and regulations that infringe on those rights in a very negative way. This is being seen in policy in South Dakota against the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota people and the “Riot Booting Act”. For Indigenous Peoples in South Dakota, their home, land, culture, and entire life source is being constantly threatened by the Keystone Pipeline.

The Pipeline, as it is now being constructed, runs from Alberta Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, pumping hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil. This pipeline is being built to go directly through the ancestral land of the Seven Council Fires of Lakota, Dakota and Nakota people. These tribes have called this land home for several thousand years, and they have a claim to the land outside of the colonial barriers that were put into place during western settlement. Not only is it disturbing the land, it severely threatens the water and life source for these people. The pollution physically harms the land and the people, while also being a reminder of the systematic oppression of Indigenous people in the United States.

These tribes are not passively letting this happen. For the past several years, they have been actively fighting and protesting to protect their land from destruction. However, in March of 2019, the state of South Dakota signed a bill known as the “Riot Booting Act” The bill signed into law by Governor Kristi Noem. It was a policy enacted to protect the progress of the pipeline and the large companies that benefit from its' oil, rather than protecting the people of South Dakota.

This new policy allowed South Dakota to sue any individual or organization for encouraging or enacting a protest where acts of violence occur. They do not define what their terms of violence mean, but it extends past a clear and present danger. Along with the lawsuits, this law could make individuals criminally or civilly liable even if they “do not personally participate in any riot but directs, advises, encourages or solicits other persons participating in the riot.”

The ACLU has been working with the NDN Collective and has filed a federal lawsuit to challenge the Riot Boosting Act because it violates their First Amendment rights and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This law extends past prosecuting violence in protest, but also works to silence anyone who is involved in the protest. It calls back to a time in the United States that speaking out against the government could have you thrown in jail during WWI and the Red Scare.

What is defined as a riot is usually racist and does not account for the mass violence that is systematically enforced on Indigenous nations. Since 2008, military-grade forces have been doing everything they can to silence these protestors as they fight for their homeland. They have a right to protest, to assemble, to petition, to exist in the spaces that they belong to. It more than just a dispute over land, it's a means of survival for the people of the Seven Council Fires.

Earlier last week, South Dakota agreed not to enforce to Riot Booting Act. Governor Noem still notes that is is illegal to violently riot in South Dakota, but her state can longer enforce a restrictive policy against protestors.

The NBA and Hong Kong

The National Basketball Association was set to have multiple preseason games played in China in preparation for the 2019-20 season. One of the teams that would be involved was the Houston Rockets. Before the Rockets were set to go to China to play, their general manager Daryl Morey sent out a tweet that read "Fight for Freedom, Stand with Hong Kong."

Morey's tweet was in reference to the protests that have been going on in Hong Kong for a few months that have seen hundreds of thousands of citizens in the streets protesting the government. However, China did not take the tweet well as partners affiliated with the National Basketball Association in China cut ties with them, broadcasts of the games were stopped, and the government said that the league needed to show them "mutual respect" (CNN).

All of the sudden the entire National Basketball Association backpedaled, even Morey himself offered an apology. But why would Morey have to apologize is the question. Morey simply offered his support to people being oppressed and it is his right to do so with free speech, but now he is offering apologies.

There is one reason for why the whole league started to back off support for Hong Kong: money. The television deal alone is worth around $1.5 billion, not to mention the advertisement revenue, merchandise sales, etc.

When China threatened to pull the plug over Morey's tweet the National Basketball Association realized that they could lose out on all of that money. That is most likely why Morey apologized, either because he knew the higher ups in the league would be angry at him for a long time if the deal fell through or the higher ups themselves contacted him telling him to back off.

Despite commissioner Adam Silver saying that the decision to apologize was not about the money, it definitely feels that if the NBA's deal with China was not so lucrative, there would be not as much of a backpedal that even included LeBron James saying that Morey was misinformed.

Overall, this situation is similar to what is going on with World Wrestling Entertainment and Saudi Arabia and their partnership, just with less significant backlash from employees.

Morey's free speech was unprotected here but there was not a lot he could do afterwards to protect it. If Morey stuck by it he would have had owners of every other team upset because he cost them millions of dollars in profits and he would have had the league in general upset and he would have cost his team money as well.

Morey could have said no and doubled down on his comments, but it could have costed him his job as general manager. That is not fair, but the owner would have had a right to do so since his general manager would have cost the team millions if he doubled down.

2nd source: https://www.businessinsider.com/nba-china-feud-timeline-daryl-morey-tweet-hong-kong-protests-2019-10#shaquille-shaq-oneal-publicly-defended-morey-on-october-22-19

Stare Libris: Let the Books Stand

As we’ve learned over the course of the semester, censorship voyaged with colonizers to America. One such form of censorship, banning books in public schools, has a rich history in the United States.

In 1982, the issue was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court: Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico. Resulting in a 5-4 decision, the Court deemed that the First Amendment does not allow the suppression of ideas. In other words, public schools are not permitted to remove books from their libraries simply on the basis of differing political or ideological beliefs. Further, “the majority of the Supreme Court held that a student’s right to receive available information could not be suppressed by school officials who might disagree.”

If you were to survey the dusty shelves of a public school library today, chances are you would find a collection of unassuming novels. Although their presence may seem ordinary, certain texts are among the most challenged books of all time. The Pico precedent is the reason these books have a space on the shelf. Such precedent may seem mundane, but its importance is unequaled. Let’s take a look at what life would be like without some of the most banned books of all time and the invaluable lessons our children would have been deprived of:

Hemmingway’s The Sun Also Rises showed us just what it means to live a meaningful life – despite despair, there is always hope knowing the sun will rise again. “You can’t get away from yourself by moving from one place to another.” You don’t get rid of a book’s message by removing that book from a shelf – the message still exists, only in a different location.

Wright’s Native Son taught us the harsh consequences of fear. “People hate because they fear, and they fear because they feel that the deepest feelings of their lives are being assaulted and outraged.” People hate certain books because they fear, and they fear because they feel that their beliefs and ideologies are being assaulted and outraged.

Other than serving as the basis for the dreaded 10^th grade English essay absolutely no student enjoys writing, Golding’s Lord of the Flies taught us about human desires – the rational and irrational parts of the soul and the consequences of each. “Maybe there is a beast … Maybe it’s only us.” Maybe the beasts aren’t the books. Maybe it’s only us.

Lastly, Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird taught us lessons of good and evil, and the importance perspective plays in our lives. Above all else, Lee’s novel taught us one very important lesson I would like to leave you with:  “Mockingbirds don’t do one thing but make music for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s garden. They don’t nest in corncribs. They don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.” Books don’t do one thing but provide stories for us to enjoy. They don’t eat up people’s minds. They don’t nest vainly in hollow shelves. They don’t do one thing but speak their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sing to kill a book.

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1982, censorship regarding books and First Amendment rights remain highly contested issues in modern-day courts. May precedent continue to win out, and may these texts live on. Stare decisis: let the decision stand. Stare libris: let the books stand.

The Hijab on the House Floor

Since 1776, America has only gotten more and more diverse. This diversity is perfectly reflected through taking a look at our newest members of Congress. Ilhan Omar is the current elected Congresswoman representing the 5th district of Minnesota. She is the first Somali-American, the first naturalized citizen from Africa, and the first non-white woman elected from Minnesota, and of the first two Muslim women (along with Rashida Tlaib of Michigan) to serve in Congress. 

Prior to her being elected, there was a ban on head coverings in the House of Representatives in 1837. Originally, this represented a break from the British House of Commons hat-wearing tradition. This rule was passed, back then, with no significant disagreements. Whether this was the intention or not the intention of the Congress in 1837, holding a ban on head coverings could automatically be considered exclusive to American culture. America is predominately Catholic and Christian. On a day to day basis, a person who identifies as Catholic or Christian does not need to wear a head covering of any sort. However, there are a plethora of religions that do in fact require a head covering. Therefore, having a ban on head coverings on the House floor is inadvertently discriminating against different religions, which then in turn is a First Amendment issue, 

We live in a contemporary America that is more distinct and diversified. Because of this fact, this sort of ban was inevitably going to run into a conflict. When Congresswoman Omar was elected into the House of Representatives, the House immediately voted to permit religious headwear on the floor for the first time in 181 years. The vote concluded with a 234 to 197 result, which allowed the new member of Congress to wear her hijab on the House floor. When the ruling passed, Omar made a statement on twitter with the powerful words "No one puts a scarf on my head but me. It's my choice--one protected by the first amendment."

Omar is a more polarizing member of Congress, with some citizens given a negative impression due to her controversial comments and some who absolutely love her. One thing is for sure, she had every right to exercise her first amendment rights and wear her hijab on the House Floor. Such a simple task speaks wonders for the positive trajectory that America is headed. 

The B Word

               The house bill 3719 in the state of Massachusetts is one that has had quit the buzz around it, in the last couple weeks. This bill states that the use of the word “bitch” would be illegal and could face fines and possible jail time if caught using the word. Many people are saying that this bill will not go far and will probably not get approved. I want to use this case as an example to show the banning of hate speech is still prevalent in people’s minds.

               First thing that I want to look at is the way the bill was proposed and how it could have not drummed up all the attention that it did. The state of Mass. citizens can request their representative to file the bill on their behalf. The person who wrote the bill would be the one who would testify for it and the representatives name would not me included. The bill was filed by Rep. Daniel Hunt, but he claims the bill was supposed to be by request from a citizen but he forgot to check the box indicating that on the form. So, Hunt is getting the flak for the bill instead. The fact that a representatives name was on the bill made it more of a deal and could be the reason why its getting so much attention. There are thousand of bills by request a year in Mass. and very little get much attention or pass but every bill is still heard by the committee.

               The precedent for hate speech is the famous case Brandenburg v Ohio. We know the details of the case and we know the appellate court overturned the decision saying Brandenburg’s speech was protected by the first amendment. The court had two points that would be required for it to be not protected under the first amendment which are "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action." If we would look at the bill it would not pass the test and the speech in question is protected under the first amendment. If they were trying to propose a law that would ban all curse words than it would be even more crazy and not even worth talking about. In this bill, they focus on the word bitch because it is offensive to women specifically. I think the bill writer was doing this in hopes of invoking support for the bill by women rights groups. The problem is when you start banning one then another will follow and then suddenly you have no free speech at all. This is the problem at we face as a society and a country. We want to have free speech but with all the offensive words that there are today is it right to all citizens to let other citizens call them things or say things to them that are offensive and not punish them for it.

               We as a civilize society use words that are even barbaric at times and we just let people say it because we want them to have free speech but where should the line really be drawn. I think the use of the b word and other words like fa word should be restricted. I think that the use of these words to describe someone should be punished as well as other offense and racial slurs. There is no use for these words and they are offense and plain unnecessary. Just saying a word shouldn’t be punished but using the b word toward someone should be punished or we will continue to fight each other and turn into barbarians if we don’t stop the hate now.

The Comstock Act and Freedom of Expression

In 1872, the commissioner of the New York Society for Suppression of Vice made his way to Capitol Hill. He was a devout Christian and anti-birth control advocate from rural New England named Anthony Comstock. Upon moving to New York City, Comstock was horrified by the “immorality” and “obscenity” that he saw on the streets. In response, he drafted an “Act of Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use.” He proposed his legislation to Congress, and it was enacted a year later in 1873. Though it did not specifically define obscenity, the Comstock Act became known as the “chastity acts” and fought against the spread of materials discussing contraceptives and abortion. The punishment was five years in prison with hard labor and a $2000 fine.

Quickly, 24 states created their own version of the Comstock Acts, controlling speech pertaining to contraception at the state level. These laws were most strictly enforced in New England, and particularly Connecticut, where married couples could be arrested for discussing birth control.  Congress hired Comstock to monitor the United States Postal Service in order suppress the transferring of “obscene materials.” He personally called for the arrest of offenders. 

One of those was feminist Ezra Heywood. He published a book in which he declared that women should have control of their bodies. He was arrested along with many who received his book in the mail—including De Robigne Mortimer Bennett. In Bennett’s trial, the judge applied the Hicklin Test established in the British case, Regina v. Hicklin (1868). The Hicklin Test determined “whether the tendencyof the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.” This aligns with the Pre-World War I concept of bad tendency in which speech is punished it has the tendency to invoke illegal action. In 1915, Bill Sanger, the husband of activist Margaret Sanger was arrested for distributed her pamphlet, Family Limitations. During his case, Justice McInerney said: "In my opinion, this book is contrary not only to the law of the State, but to the law of God… If some of these women who go around advocating Woman Suffrage would go around and advocate women having children, they would be rendering society a greater service." As a result, he spent 30 days in jail. 

Unsurprisingly, the Comstock Act faced backlash. In 1878, National Liberal League and the National Defense Association collected 50,000 signatures and presented their petition to Congress. The petition declared that “enforced to destroy the liberty of conscience in matters of religion, against the freedom of the press and to the great hurt of the learned professions.”

Many, if not most, of the Comstock Act’s opponents were women’s rights activists. After all, by suppressing speech concerning birth control, access to birth control was severely limited. The Comstock Act illustrates that when freedom of expression is barred, it can lead to the barring of other freedoms. 

In 1936, the United States v. One Package case pushed back on the Comstock Act by removing some of the birth control provisions. After this, doctors were legally allowed to provide their patients with information about contraceptives. However, in the 1960s, 30 states still had limitations on birth control advertisements. It wasn’t until 1971 that all language concerning birth control was removed. 

Black Hair and Freedom of Expression

In 2017, sisters Mya and Deanna Cook were removed from their classrooms due to a dress code violation. The two had recently gotten braided hair extensions for their 16th birthday and faced backlash from Mystic Valley Regional Charter School. The school administrators deemed their braids as distracting. When told to remove the hairstyle before the following school day, Mya and Deanna refused. Their refusal resulted in the sisters being removed from their extracurricular activities and possible suspension. They were also not allowed to attend their upcoming prom. 

Other cases of black students being punished for their hairstyle have occured at the Massachusetts charter school. In these instances, girls were removed from class and question about their hair. If the student admitted to having extensions, she was given detention. One student that wore hair naturally was told to relax or straighten it before returning the next day. 

Aaron and Colleen Cook, the adopted parents of Mya and Deanna, were outraged after being told their daughters' needed to “fix” their hair. They brought yearbooks to the administration and pointed out white students with extensions or dyed hair. The schools administration dismissed the images, saying the white students’ hair alterations were not as obvious. 

A complaint was filed to the NAACP, Anti-defamation league, and ALCU by the parents, in which they stated that the dress code was discriminatory towards black female students. The school decided to remove their dress code for the remainder of the school year. 

There are plenty of other discrimination cases involving black hairstyles. A high school wrestler from New Jersey was given the ultimatum of cutting his dreadlocks before a match or forfeiting. An elementary school in Atlanta, Georgia faced criticism for being racially insensitive after displaying “inappropriate” hairstyles in which only images black students were used. 

Dress codes that forbid students from expressing themselves with their hairstyle is discrimination. Especially if the style has a cultural or religious significance. In the incident involving Mya and Deanna Cook, the sisters wanted to express their black heritage by having braids installed. The problem escalates when an individuals rights, like receiving an education, are compromised. The freedom to express oneself is a right that is documented in our Bill of Rights.

Since then, the CROWN Act, an acronym for “Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair, has been passed by the California Legislature. This act has been sponsored by the beauty company, Dove. Around the country, other cities are working to get the CROWN Act passed. Some of these places include Montgomery, Alabama, New York, Cincinnati Ohio, and Boston, Massachusetts. 

As a black woman, it is upsetting to know that the texture of my hair could be considered a dress code violation or ruled as unprofessional. I appreciate that an effort is being made to stop this freedom of expression issue.

Is it Time to Revisit the Validity of the Protections of the Westboro Baptist Church?

The Westboro Baptist Church, located just outside of Topeka, Kansas has been under scrutiny for as long as I can remember. I remember going to see Taylor Swift in concert in middle school and the Westboro Baptist Church protesting for reasons unknown to me at the time. While their scare tactics didn’t stop me from attending the concert, it certainly shook me up and continues to do so each time I attend an event that they protest at.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve seen their presence at the Women’s March in 2017, other concerts in downtown Kansas City, and they even came to my brother’s high school his freshman year (2 years ago) to protest “gay students, divorce, and fornication” (Kansas City Star). They stood across the street from the school and shouted hateful things at the students walking either from their homes or cars. 

The incident at my brother’s high school shook me more than any of the other events I’d attended where the Westboro Baptist Church had been present. The difference, in my mind, was that I had chosen to attend the Taylor Swift concert and the Women’s March. I knew that they would most likely be present ahead of time and was not forced to attend either event, but chose to regardless. Going to public high school, however, is not a choice. Children are legally mandated to go to school and many don’t have the choice to skip if they are uncomfortable with the Westboro Baptist Church’s presence. Their presence has been known to be triggering to many, especially if you’re a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, especially as an adolescent.

A quick Google search reveals that I’m not the only one uncomfortable with the demonstrations especially at a mandatory event where students are not allowed to opt out of attending without special exemption. The Kansas City Star reported on the event when it happened back in early 2018, saying the entire student body came together to make students feel welcomed and loved during this time. While this response helps students feel safe, the question of whether or not the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to protest a public institution like this when it directly causes harm to students hangs in the balance.

The Westboro Baptist Church has been living under Supreme Court protection for almost ten years now, despite the clear hate speech. Back in 2011, the supreme court case Snyder v. Phelps decided that the subject matter of what The Westboro Baptist Church speaks/protests about is protected by the first amendment because it falls under public matters and concerns. The decision was 8-1 and has given the Westboro Baptist Church the freedom to continue their hateful protests and speech. 

The ruling of the case is logical, yet doesn’t make it any easier to digest. Considering spaces like public schools and funerals, where attending is less optional than a concert or already existing march, subjecting oneself to their hateful words can have a larger impact. The luxury of turning off your computer or not attending an event is lost when the circumstances do not lend itself to the option to not participate. The spaces the Westboro Baptist Church enters that are not optional in attendance cause emotional harm and could be argued is dangerous speech. 

I hope the Westboro Baptist Church ceases to exist for many reasons: lack of support, lack of legal protection, and lack of tolerance of hate by the general public. It’s 2019: our society can do better. 

The President's Ability to Control Free Speech

In September of 2019, President Donald Trump was accused of soliciting interference from another country in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. These accusations came from a phone call between President Trump and the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The transcripts translated that one of the purposes of the call was to investigate Democratic rival Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden is a pawn for President Trump because of his past dealings with China and Ukraine. He is said to have sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. President Trump is attempting to use Hunter Biden’s past against his father in the 2020 Election. However, the big issue with this situation as far as free speech goes, is that President Trump is harassing the ‘whistleblower.’ 

The statements put out by Trump on Twitter or at press conferences are not illegal themselves, but he is harming the right of free speech. Once the transcripts leaked, President Trump attacked the whistleblower’s credibility, questioned the meager whistleblower protections in place, and labeled the whistleblowers as “spies.” President Trump even suggested that the spies should be treated as they would in “the old days.” It seems that President Trump is recalling to the punishments of sedition in the early United States. This is where someone would get punished by a fine or jail time, for criticizing the United States government. Regardless of what the President meant by treating the whistleblowers like “the old days,” he is still harming the reliability of the First Amendment. The President is harming the credibility of current whistleblowers and intimidating future whistleblowers with his words. He is attempting to limit the speech of U.S. citizens, and this is a humongous problem for free speech. 

I do believe that a good view of government and the officials involved is important. However, limiting the speech of people is not necessary. Limiting the speech of whistleblowers allows for more tyrannical actions by government officials. In other words, the power of the government will continue to grow due to their falsehoods not being expressed. Democracy is the essence of this nation, and without the powers of free expression the country’s democracy is injured drastically.

Halloween and Freedom of Speech

Despite the simplicity and innocence of Halloween, the holiday can't seem to avoid being caught in the midst of controversy. Campuses and schools all across the country have taken to the initiative of censoring Halloween costumes in order to avoid racial stereotyping. Among those costumes infamous for doing so include the Japanese Geisha, Diana Ross, and other costumes with objectifying and cultural implications. However one may ask themselves, what the harm is in dressing up like a tribal warrior. Even if it includes mimicking certain traditions held sacred to those people many hardcore costume-goers still argue for their freedom of expression. One dress shop in a Sheffield city center seems to be taking their freedom of expression as far as it can go. "The Gestapo officer outfit", is available for purchase for professional actors and Halloweeners says store faculty. Though the Nazi themed costume may be unsettling to Holocaust survivors; by not allowing our Freedom of Expression to protect offensive content think about how much media we would be limiting? The store faculty offered a strong rebuttal by citing that the costume's purpose is for entertainment. This emphasizes the importance of context within the means of self-expression. Still many private universities have continued in the trend of policing Halloween costume involving suggestive themes. In contrast public universities and schools must follow federal law policy. Although likewise to private schools, public schools embody a wide variety of students from different backgrounds, and many take offense to certain costumes. Specifically the costumes that require blackface, and wearing Nazi paraphernalia. Many students, parents, and faculty worry if the First Amendment will reopen old wounds in attempts to protect freedom of expression. Megyn Kelly expressed an opposing sentiment "But what is racist, Because you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface for Halloween, Back when I was a kid that was okay, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character".  Kelly's argument had good intentions however it fails to mention the history of blackface in American culture. While her speech and the right to express oneself using blackface are both protected offensive content according to the First Amendment you will still held accountable by the masses. Kelly would later lose her position in aftermath of her speech, it's an instance of society silencing unpopular opinions.