Free speech appears to be a universal and simple concept, however, free speech does not equal unlimited speech. Throughout history, the idea of where the line is drawn between speech supported by the First Amendment and speech not supported has been constantly redefined. Whether or not free speech is more or less suppressed depends on a multitude of factors, both inside the judicial system and out. In the court case, Boyle v. Landry, once again, the boundaries of free speech were redefined. Through the use of rhetorical strategies of kairos and logos through precedent, the Supreme Court upheld certain ideas that allow for the freedom of speech of certain individuals to be constitutionally suppressed affecting protesting groups across Illinois.…show more content… These statutes were challenged by the protestors on the motion that their arrest and prosecution were a violation of free speech under their First Amendment right (Boyle v. Landry). The statutes were brought into question by the state Supreme Court, specifically looking at the intimidation case. The intimidation statute was described as having a “chilling effect” on freedom of speech as basing something as intimidating is completely subjective, and can lead to exploitation (Source 1). The states believed that the statute violated the freedom of speech of the people, however, in an 8-1 reversal decision the Supreme Court ruled that the Illinois statute was Constitutionally acceptable and was not in danger of causing “irreparable injury” (“John S. Boyle v. Lawrence Landry”); therefore it does not violate the First Amendment. The courts defended the idea that the intimidation statute was constitutional by utilizing precedent as a way to reason their ideas. Throughout this time period, the Supreme Court was known for constantly rewriting the boundaries of free speech. One case, in particular Samuels v Mackell, also occurred in the same…show more content… Landry specifically, the effect of the protests (both nonviolent and violent) that have been occurring within the decade could have had an impact on the ruling. Seeing the outcomes of the protests within the Free Speech Movement may have pushed the court to agree more with the statute rather than defending the rights of individuals themselves, as the existence and validity of statutes could serve as a way to suppress unwanted protests. Although Boyle v. Landry only directly involved two small parties of several African Americans of Chicago as well as officials of Cook County, the case created a precedent that could be majorly exploited in suppressing what people have to say. Considering the fact that it was African American males who were being persecuted even though it was a peaceful protest, shows just how manipulative this decision could be interpreted. Since these intimidation statutes were proved to be non-harmful, they could now be exploited to suppress similar protests or actions. However, this also sets good boundaries when it comes to addressing hate speech. Hate speech is found everywhere and is a topic that is constantly addressed when looking at freedom of speech. It can be found in many forms, but nowadays very much related to gender and race (Hassan
