How would the founders of the Constitution handle a First Amendment issue in our modern day world?

The American Revolution began in order to preserve the colonist’s existing way of life, rather than creating something new. But what came out of the Revolution was in fact something new- The United States.

The Constitutional Convention was attended by 73 delegates and met in secret for four months. The founders of the Constitution created the theory of republicanism which advocated for a limited government based on popular consent but protected against majority tyranny. Another important part of the Constitution is the Bill of Rights which is the first ten amendments that are concerned with the protection of basic liberties.

The first ten amendments of the Constitution still play an important part of everyday life in society today. For example, the administrator of a small town in northern Maine was fired this past week because of his white separatist views. The article Maine Town Manager Is Fired for Touting ‘White Civil Rights’ reveals that Kawcynski has made public comments bashing the Islamic religion, and that he also operates a website that pushes for racial segregation in northern New England. Elected officials of Jackman unanimously voted to fire Kawcynski after a closed-door meeting on Tuesday January 23rd. The administration agreed to give Kawcynski a $30,000 severance package, which states he will not sue the town for wrongful termination.

Tom Kawcynski’s website and views on white supremacy are fully supported by the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. The state cannot limit Kawcynski’s right to express his beliefs, even if he is in office and some people may find them offensive. Kawcynski did not violate any laws yet simply expressed his own opinion, the fact that it was controversial and unpopular is not his fault.

Tom Kawcynski’s firing by the town of Jackman was unconstitutional because it was based solely upon the expression of his own opinion. The fact that Kawcynski’s opinion was controversial and unpopular is not a valid reason to remove him from his position in office. Tom Kawcynski has the constitutional right to voice his beliefs and opinion about American society regardless of his position as town administrator.

The Founders of the Constitution may not have anticipated all of the civil liberty problems that were going to arise from the the first 10 amendments alone. There is almost always a First Amendment issue happening in the news at least once a week, which I think is telling about the wording of the First Amendment. It might need to be updated in order for people to feel more comfortable exercising their rights.

7 Responses to "How would the founders of the Constitution handle a First Amendment issue in our modern day world?"

Carlin O'Neill says:

January 28, 2018 at 2:57 pm

Hi Maddy,

It is true that this town administrator Kawcynski was simply exercising his right to freedom of speech as the Constitution states, but I also think that this case is dependent on how one may interpret the Constitution and what its framers were thinking at the time of its conception. The Constitution’s meaning has been debated since it was adopted and I think that one can take a more literalist approach to understanding it or a more open interpretative approach. To say that firing this town leader was a violation of his constitutional right is definitely a more literalist approach because he was punished for exercising a point in the Bill of Rights. However, it can also be seen from a different perspective. This man was posting potentially harmful and offensive content that had the possibility of hurting American citizens or making them feel unsafe and unwelcome. Technically it is the job of a government to protect its citizens from any harm, and it can be said that what this man was posting and saying was a harm or threat. Therefore, the firing of this man by other state officials was just the act of them fulfilling their governmental role of protecting the people. I think that this case is definitely debatable depending on how one may interpret the Constitution itself.
Thanks for your post!!

Carlin
Timothy Miller says:

January 30, 2018 at 3:15 pm

Maddy,
This topic is something that is always hypothesized and I always felt comfortable with saying keep him in office because it is his right to say what he wants. But when it is an actuality and I have to imagine a political figure of my town publicly bashing the Islamic community, I don’t think my hypothetical answer can hold true. Going off what Carlin said, if the government’s purpose is to protect its citizens then I think the decision to remove Kawcynski from office was the right one. I think he put his community in a tough spot and the media had and still has the opportunity to blow up the situation so there weren’t many other options. I do wonder what I would truly do if I was forced to make a decision in this situation though. Do you know if he tried to fight it at all?
Thanks for writing.
Tim
Austin Marsilia says:

January 30, 2018 at 3:38 pm

Madeleine,
You provide a solid argument in your defense of the First Amendment. However, I believe you are missing one key piece of information. Kawcynski was employed by the government. I am not sure if the same rules apply to the civilian sector on a local level, but in the United States Army, if a Soldier publicly promotes radicalism, he or she will be discharged. This is due to the Army policy stating that all soldiers must embody the Army values and act accordingly. Although I am a strong believer in the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, Kawcynski’s situation is one that is more unique than an example of a protester being detained for peacefully protesting, or a journalist being imprisoned for speaking out against a political policy. Due to his government employment status, Kawcynski had agreed to a reduction in his civil liberties, resulting in his termination after spouting white supremacist propaganda. Although I am unaware of the whole situation, this is my hypothesis as to why Kawcynski’s position was terminated. For future reference, I would have liked to see previous examples of the issue mentioned in your post to compare to modern day occurrences. Overall, interesting post and nice job.
Thanks,
Austin
1. Joanna Briand says:
  
  January 30, 2018 at 6:12 pm
  
  Hello Maddy,
  
  I appreciate the argument you have presented in your blog post. I think it is a very interesting debate because as you said, there are still so many controversies regarding the First Ten Amendments and their translation into modern day life.
  While I am someone that supports the First Ten Amendments, I believe that Kawcynski’s superiors had a right to terminate him from his position. I agree with you in that Kawcynski has every right to state his opinions no matter what they are, just as the First Amendment permits him. However, I do not think that firing him was unconstitutional. It’s not that the officials in his office prohibited him from sharing his sentiments. It seems as though they simply did not agree with these controversial beliefs, and clearly did not want him in office anymore if he was going to represent something that the rest of the officials did not stand for.
  This relates to an article that I read about how Harvard University rescinded the admissions of at least 10 students in the class of 2021 after they posted “sexually explicit memes” that mocked sexual assault that contained openly anti-Semitic and racial messages.
  While these students have freedom of speech, they explicitly broke the admissions policy that states that Harvard can revoke an admission if a student engages in “morally questionable behavior”. Harvard has every right to determine what follows under this “morally questionable behavior”, and they obviously thought that this controversial Facebook activity was applicable. While we certainly follow the rules set in the Constitution, we must also consider the rules of the organizations that we associate ourselves with.
  Just as Kawcynski’s superiors are not obligated to employ Kawcynski, Harvard is not obligated to admit these students if they do not feel the opinions of their populace align with what their institutions respectively stand for. Even though everyone has freedom of speech, we, as citizens, are at risk every time we post or say something on a public platform. If an organization does not feel they want to associate themselves and thereby represent their institution in a negative light, they shouldn’t feel the need to keep them around.
  https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/06/06/531591202/harvard-rescinds-admission-of-10-students-over-obscene-facebook-messages
Paige Jordan says:

January 30, 2018 at 5:50 pm

Maddy, when I first read about this specific instance I would have agreed with your position. Yes, the first amendment does indeed protect Kawcynski’s personal views regardless of their popularity or controversy that may arise. However, being he held a higher political position, his opinions represent something greater than his mere person. The boundaries of the Constitution have been interpreted subjectively, especially in modern day society. Although I understand that as a citizen, Kawzynski is guaranteed the rights our founders worked to ensure, being that he is an authority figure this case must be more closely evaluated. His actions and speech inevitably represent his administration. Therefore, if this speech is potentially offensive and the officials in which he is associated with deem it wrong, their sentencing is just. As Carlin and Tim had stated, it is ultimately the role of the government to protect its people. If the people feel threatened or endangered by the acts of an official, or say administrator of their town, they have the right to take action against it.
Abigail Belcher says:

January 31, 2018 at 11:49 am

Maddy,
I think you bring up an important topic that is causing a widespread issue across the United States daily. Many people are finding it is okay to express their opinions in a harsh way and feel as if they are backed up by the first amendment. I think a lot of Americans are getting way too comfortable with these types of stances and beliefs because they think they can never get in trouble or they will be able to sue due to this amendment. I think in Kawcynski’s instance, the administration proceeded with the only viable option they saw in order to protect themselves. The administration themselves don’t have the option to change the first amendment in order to fire Kawcynsk for how he was choosing to display his beliefs. In response to Carlin, I think the amendment most definitely must be taken literally, because any citizen can use it, such as Kawcynski, to back up their behavior. Therefore, not only must every authority figure proceed with caution in how they choose to handle people who can’t keep their mouths shut about their racist opinions, the first amendment is also in need of an update to reflect our generation’s general current viewpoints of acceptance. In doing so, we can help eliminate these harmful attacks against innocent people and help them feel safer in our nation.
Isabella Brown says:

January 31, 2018 at 5:47 pm

Maddy,

I appreciated your article because it addresses the problem of how the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted today. This is a problem that our our country keeps running into, whether it be about gun rights or if our free speech should have limits. Personally, I am a defender of the First Amendment. One of the things I think is great that sets us apart from other countries is our guarantee of protection with our speech. Whereas in some European countries they have hate speech laws, our First Amendment secures our right to speak our opinions, no matter if they may revile others. I believe that our country would fall into great danger of becoming a tyranny if our speech were to be censored. Free speech is what guarantees journalists their safety and allows them to act as watchdogs over the government. And yet, to a certain degree, there is on a limit on our speech when it comes to the safety of other citizens. You are not allowed to yell fire in a theater or bomb in an airport, so why should you be able to spew hate that could be perceived as threatening in a government office? I think that the circumstances would have been different had this been a private business, but since the employer was the government, as Austin has previously mentioned, there were special circumstances surrounding this termination of employment. For this reason, I agree with the majority in that since it is the government’s duty to protect citizens, this threatening individual rightfully should have been removed in order to ensure that the government could uphold their duty. Thanks for bringing up this story and sparking an interesting debate that showcases both sides of the issue.

Bella Brown

Comments are closed.