In the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment states, “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.” This has allowed the press to deliver news without censorship. However, it does have restrictions. Although most people are aware that free speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution, many people do not understand that it does not mean unfettered free speech. This results in people saying, printing, filming and posting things that are inappropriate, unacceptable and incorrect. In this article, we will explore what is allowed and disallowed, the need for rigid restrictions and how our law should change.

Although the public is likely to be worried about an atmosphere where hate speech becomes uncensored and prevalent, the Constitution has numerous measures to protect us from those eager to create an non-inclusive and dangerous environment. The Constitution does not allow for incitement (speech intended to encourage violence) and threats (expressive or implicit threats of unlawful violence against others). Likewise, fighting words—words “that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” according to the Supreme Court—are prohibited by law. These types of statements do nothing but create conflict. If the law does not protect its people from hate speech and lets people freely express their racist, sexist and violent thoughts, people will be discriminated against or even put in danger. Everyone has the right to think as they want and civilly express their opinion, but creating an atmosphere where the target is uncomfortable is inappropriate.

In this context, inappropriate behavior and cyberbullying should also have regulations. When we log into social media, we frequently encounter “haters” who write and post mean things to and about public figures with the intention of hurting their feelings. Although it is impossible to be liked by everyone and to agree on everything, cyberbullies act with intentions to harm a person. The victims are negatively affected by consistent, purposeful hate on a massive scale. Imagine opening Instagram and people you don’t even know are consistently sending mean comments for no reason or for things that are not true. Cyberbullying should be treated the same way as physical violence. Verbal abuse and harassment must be taken seriously rather than merely saying that everyone cannot be liked or it’s just a part of fame.

Laws against false information should be improved. Although the Constitution and the Supreme Court agree that false statements do have detrimental effects, protection against them is only provided in incidents where the incorrect information is proven to be the reason for harm, as in the case of fraud, defamation and libel. It is one of the reasons why gossip magazines with numerous false claims stay in business. However, the danger of fake news is greater than the benefit that the writers get from clicks and likes. They create confusion and misunderstandings. And while fake news about celebrities and their private life may have little impact, information in areas such as politics, health and current events can lead to inappropriate reactions from the public.

In these contexts, defamation, slander and libel should be easier to take legal measures against. Our current law requires that victims of certain slander prove that the public actually believes the news and that it was presented as a fact, that the information was given out of negligence or malicious intentions, that some harm was caused and that the harm was due to the false information. However, this system is not perfect. If false information about us is spread amongst our peers, it is difficult to find physical proof of who spread it, if people believe it and that the person who spread the rumor had malicious intentions. As a result, those who depend severely on their public reputation, such as celebrities and politicians, must go through a strenuous process to recover from the damage. The law should promote awareness of the danger of false news without overburdening the victim in recovering from the damage more easily.

Not everything should be approved to be posted and released to the general public. Although novels, fictional stories, shows, films and other sorts of entertainment are geared toward delivering a message and entertaining the public, certain kinds of media are created with unethical methods and purposes. Obscenity, by definition, is “certain material as offensive to the public sense of decency.” To assess obscenity, the Supreme Court’s Miller test evaluates “(1) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literacy, artistic, political or scientific value.” Immature audience’s exposure to inappropriate materials can interfere with their development. Also, child pornography and revenge porn—which are not protected by the First Amendment—are produced in unethical ways that harms the victim.

We frequently encounter people who say that they are “straight-shooters” and speak without a filter. However, people like that often cross the line and say things that are offensive and rude, excusing their own actions as being direct and neglecting the fact that being nice is also important. The same applies to free speech. As important as it is to please the audience, speak the truth and express yourself, it is also important not to cross the line and hurt others.