An Apologia To Radical Dissent And A Supreme Court Test To Protect It

Some framers of the Constitution of the United States, scholars and Supreme Court justices have argued that protection and encouragement of democratic deliberation are at the core purpose of the First Amendment. Most of these individuals would, nevertheless, exclude radical political dissent from constitutional protection. They seem to disagree with Thomas Jefferson, who believed in the salutary effects of revolutionary speech and even the occasional revolution. Government action targeting terrorist speech and association extends from this reasoning. This article argues that extreme political speech has benefit to society. Building on a varied body of First Amendment opinions, the author proposes a five-part test to better protect the radical speech vital to self-government and the search for truth.