ISSUE BRIEF: Speech and Its Relationship to Equality: Constitutional Values in the Digital Age
Summary
Our Constitution promises both free speech and equality. The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech ensures the structural role of free speech in a democracy. It safeguards democratic deliberation, protects individual autonomy, and prevents the government from silencing speakers it disagrees with. The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws promises equality under the law for all persons. This means that the government must respect the equality and dignity of every person residing in the United States and may not single out disfavored groups of people for discriminatory treatment. How should we reconcile these two co-equal constitutional values of speech and equality when they come into conflict? All too often, courts privilege speech over equality, pretending there is only a single constitutional value, rather than multiple values, at play. These are pressing issues both in the courts, where conservative activists are insisting that the First Amendment confers a license to discriminate, and outside the courts, where there is a robust debate over what free expression means in the digital age and how and whether to regulate hateful content on social media platforms and how to protect individuals from cyber harassment.
.
Research on constitutional values in a digital era was in part supported by funding from Google.
CAC’s David H. Gans and Praveen Fernandes discuss the issue brief on #PurpleChairChat.
More from Civil and Human Rights
March 21, 2025
Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
March 19, 2025
Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
February 27, 2025
What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Shilling v. Trump
In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
February 19, 2025
History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Talbott v. Trump
In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.