Introduction
The drafters of the American constitution never saw the importance of including freedom of speech in the country’s supreme laws until the First Amendment was made after the revolution. The federal, as well as the state authorities were expected to provide an enabling environment that would allow people to exercise their democratic rights on free speech effectively. During colonialism, criticizing the government was considered treason and the common law of seditious libel was applied successfully to prevent people from attacking public officials (Curtis, 2000). In fact, an individual had to seek government approval before publishing any material that talked negatively about the government. Any speech viewed as blasphemous in religious terms was censored and the government had a tight control over it. The American revolutionary war forced the government to reconsider its position on free speech, as federalists favored a stronger central government whereas anti-federalists wanted a weaker central government. Since constitutional ratification gave the federal government powers over states, the bill of rights were adopted to contain the power of the central government. The Alien and Seditions Acts were drafted in 1789 prohibiting any individual from publishing sensitive literature that would defame the federal government, the US president, and the parliament (Nelson, 2005). The Warren Court’s jurisprudence of the 20th century strengthened the freedom of speech, but gave some exceptions.
Speech Limitations
The freedom of speech is limited at times because of a number of reasons, one of them being the nature of the content. If the content of the speech is aimed at defaming a person or harming them, the court is likely to deny such rights. In Snyder v. Phelps for instance, the court determined that the picketers used a language that was likely to cause pain to the family of the fallen soldier forcing the court to stop them from engaging in further demonstration. The second restriction is based on time and space whereby an individual is not permitted to enter into another’s zone and attack them with words without obtaining the necessary license from the government (McLeod, & Lessig, 2007). Again, speeches that incite members of the public against an organization, a company, or the company are not allowed and it might force the government to limit the freedom. Some words are considered injurious because they make the hearers to retaliate hence breaching the peace. The constitution does not allow an individual to use inflammatory words in exercising democratic rights related to free speech.
Review of Court Cases
Snyder v, Phelps
In this case, the father of the marine soldier, Snyder, took the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps and his family to court with charges of causing intentional infliction of emotional distress following the church’s actions to demonstrate claiming that God was punishing the country for immorality. Mathew Snyder was a soldier who died while fighting for his country in Iraq. Fred Phelps believed the cause of the casualties was prevalent immorality in the country and the only solution was repenting. Snyder saw this as an abuse and went ahead to sue the church. There were three critical issues that the court was expected to determine, one of them being whether damages were to be awarded to the family for the emotional pain felt following the insult. The judges were to determine whether the First Amendment safeguards religious freedoms and peaceful assembly. Finally, the juries were supposed to conclude whether any person attending a family burial is entitled to protection under the law. Unfortunately, the court ruled in favor of the Westboro church and Phelps. The limitations to the case include time and place because Snyder wanted the court to fine Phelps for breaching the constitution, as he picketed at a private function. However, the court established that a distance was maintained between the picketers and the mourners.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
Falwell was a fundamental protestant minister serving in one of the local churches in the United States. The magazine had depicted him quarrelling with his mother in an outhouse. Even though the magazine was known for its humor, the church leader went ahead to sue it for what he termed as defamation. The lower court at the state level had awarded damages amounting to one-hundred and fifty dollars, but the Supreme Court overturned the decision after scrutinizing the provisions of the First Amendment on free speech. The court was expected to determine whether the ideas and opinions of the publishers fell under the free speech provisions. The judges ruled unanimously that an individual has the freedom to express his or her mind, as it entails individual liberty. The limitation of free speech in the case was related to content, but the judges established that the writer used appropriate language that did not attract any fine.
United States v. Eichman
The case involved one of the activists who demonstrated by burning the country’s flag. Eichman was taken to court to face charges of demeaning the country’s national symbol, but the court established that it was within the law for an individual to temper with state property as one way of expressing anger. The government noted that the act of burning a flag amounts to expressive conduct, which is punishable by law. The limitation to the free speech in the case was related to content, as the culprit would have been punished in case it was established that he was communicating something different.
Implications related to freedom of speech for e-Marketing
Advertising of goods and services is protected under the First Amendment in a section talking about commercial speech. However, the government has the right to protect public interests, especially when the content is deceptive and misleading. The aim of any advertising company is to win the hearts and emotions of consumers meaning it may apply various tricks, some of which might be misleading. E Marketing is gaining popularity in the modern society because of its ability to attract the attention of many youths. Advertisements made via the social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, are likely to achieve their targets because of ease with which people access them (Pieters, 2008). Fortunately, restrictions touching on time and space are not applicable to e-Marketing, but the content is always under strict scrutiny. With the provisions of the constitution on free speech, the future of e-Marketing is bright.
How the Internet has affected freedom of speech and what it means to e-Marketing
The effects of the internet on free speech are positive because people are allowed to share information freely via the various social media, such as Facebook and Twitter. Restrictions that existed before the emergence of the internet are inapplicable in the internet age. Marketing should seize this opportunity to advertise their products and services via the social media because they are likely to capture the attention of an important market segment particularly the youths and the working class (Jansen, & Mullen, 2008). Marketing of products used to consume enormous resources, but internet marketing is likely to reduce the costs and boost the organization’s profitability.
References
Curtis, M.K (2000). Free Speech, “The People’s Darling Privilege”: Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History. New York: Duke University Press.
Jansen, B.J., & Mullen, T. (2008). Sponsored search: an overview of the concept, history, and technology. International Journal of Electronic Business, 6(2), 114–131.
McLeod, K., & Lessig, L. (2007). Freedom of Expression: Resistance and Repression in the Age of Intellectual Property. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Nelson, S.P. (2005). Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism. New York: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pieters, R. (2008). A Review of Eye-Tracking Research in Marketing. Review of Marketing Research, 4(2), 123–147.