The Supreme Court has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. Not speaking, using offensive language to convey political messages, students wearing black armbands to school to protest a war ("Students do not lose their constitutional rights at the school gate."), contributing financially to campaigns, advertising commercial products and services (with certain restrictions), and even engaging in symbolic speech (e.g. burning the flag in protest) are some of the specific inclusions of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment. What I found more interesting were the specific cases that constitute what is not considered a right to free speech. Many specific violations targeted students and their styles of protest, but the two that stood out to me after watching Denial were: Inciting actions that could harm others (e.g., shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. ) Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919) and manufacturing or distributing obscene material. Roth v. United States, 354 US 476 (1957). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In the movie Denial, there are many examples of how David Irving arrogantly represents himself in court. He insisted on denying the Holocaust and even ridiculed the idea of ​​the Holocaust by offering $1,000 to anyone who could prove that the Nazis gassed Jews in one of Lipstadt's classrooms. When Lipstadt and his legal team had to travel to Auschwitz to prove the existence of the gas chambers, Holocaust survivors had an even more difficult time proving the inhumane injustices suffered by so many. If "inciting actions likely to harm others" or "making or distributing obscene material" are both violations, how can the legal action requiring proof of inhumane acts of violence bring justice to all people involved? This is not the case. The validity of one person's word over another in a legal system has unfortunately been the trap of many injustices. Painful cases involving child abuse or horrific homicides are prime examples of how freedom of expression cannot be sufficiently regulated to provide justice to all who seek it, especially those who do not have no witnesses. Revoking painful memories in court as a defense is in all respects “inciting actions likely to harm others,” however that is defined. Just as a defense attorney would try to blame the victim to better defend the offender, Irving's boastfully denying all factual allegations is absolutely the same. These cases where you have to fight to prove your case or back down create a breeding ground for the violation and unfair use of free speech. In conclusion, freedom of expression will never be fully defined and properly defended. I think this movie did a great job depicting cases where the court must collect every detail possible to serve justice. The fact that Irving was found to be an active Holocaust denier, anti-Semitic, and racist, as well as having distorted and manipulated historical evidence, was monumental, because the fact was that he was denying something that had happened. . Just as anyone who falsely accuses another of rape, abuse or any other crime is found guilty of.