Analysis Of Don T Bread On Me Vs Ia

In the Supreme Court case “Don’t Tread on me v. IA”, the Iowa statute is unconstitutional because it restricts an individual’s liberties to have freedom of speech, and freedom of expression, by violating the 14th amendment. The facts of the case indicate that the Iowa statute does not pass the precedent direct incitement test. Although the language used on the “Don’t tread on me” website was harmful, no immediate incitement occurred after it was created. With this being said, the speech of the website’s leaders is protected by the constitution. Direct incitement remains the best test to use in cases like this because it expresses a very liberalistic interpretation of the 1st amendment. The first step to interpreting why this test is appropriate for this case is through John Stuart Mill’s liberal interpretation of the first amendment.
In Mills literature “On Liberty of thought and discussion” he expressed that we shouldn’t have to conform to the majorities opinion. He …show more content…
He also argued that we should have more faith in the process of discussion, rather than the process of our own beliefs. When societies continue to conform to the authority (the government in this particular case) discussions cease to exist, and “dead dogma” occurs. Mill gave the example of religion, more specifically Christianity, to demonstrate how people follow tradition in a way that doesn’t challenge them to think for themselves. The Christians went about their lives following church rituals without asking any questions of why they followed them. This is a perfect example of why Mill would argue that this is why we need more people like the creators of the “Don’t Tread on me” website. If everyone just goes along with this law restricting their liberty to freely speak on the subject of public officials, they would basically be giving up their freedom to