Assaults on Freedom of Thought and Speech in Inherit the Wind (1960) and Trumbo (2015) (Research Paper Sample)

Assaults on Freedom of Thought and Speech in Inherit the Wind (1960) and Trumbo (2015)
Freedom of speech can be defined as a guarantee to express beliefs, ideas or opinions without interference from the state or any sovereign governing body. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognizes freedom of speech and this provision is adopted by individual states. Many democracies throughout the world recognize this right and have enshrined in their Constitutions. The First Amendment of American Constitution guarantees the citizens freedom of speech and thought. This provision states that the Congress cannot make any laws which would essentially abridge this freedom. However, there are several limitations to freedom of speech. Judiciary and other legal stakeholders have found it hard to create a balance between what should be protected and which form of freedom of speech amounts to contravention of law. Throughout mankind history, assault of freedom of speech is well documented. Complexities and diversities of different societies have played a major role in shaping the jurisprudence of freedom of speech. This paper will therefore analyze the legal issues addressed in two films: Inherit the Wind (1960) and Trumbo (2015), and subsequently discuss how the two films portray assault on freedom of thought and speech, albeit differently. 
SUMMARY
Inherit the Wind. The first film, Inherit the Wind, is based of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and ideological affiliation to the same. In one of the small towns of United States, a school teacher named Bertram Cates is facing trial for teaching his student the fundamental concepts of the aforementioned theory. This attracts condemnation from other members of the society; especially the town’s political and religious leaders. Generally, the residents of the town are happy. Prominent personalities such as a three times presidential candidate, Matthew Brady and Reverend Jeremiah Brown are interested parties and are in support of the prosecution team. On the other hand, Cates’ defense is handled by a prominent lawyer, Henry Drummond. What follows is an ideological battled based on religious doctrines, legal frameworks and scientific theories; intertwined into court’s proceedings. The most outstanding feature in this film is Drummond’s attempt to prove that Cates, just like any other human being, has a right to not only make his own opinions regarding social, religious or political issues but also to freely express those ideas .
Trumbo. On the other hand, Trumbo is primarily a political film depicting a bitter conflict between communism and capitalism in American society during cold war era. Dalton Trumbo is an active member of Communist Party and also a screenwriter. His works, which are ideologically affiliated to communism, attracts condemnation from other Hollywood figures such as Hedda Hopper and John Wayne. Trumbo is selected to be one of the screenwriters who would testify before the Congress in regard to spread of communism in Hollywood. In a twisted course of events, he is accused of contempt of Congress and his attempts to win the case at the Supreme Court level is frustrated by the death of two liberal judges. Eventually, Trumbo is found guilty and sentenced to one year jail term. Upon his release, he continues to write screenplays; however, as a ghostwriter. Trumbo writes a screen play for the film Spartacus and events which consequentially followed marks the end of blacklisting in Hollywood on basis of political and ideological affiliations and general appreciation of the freedom of thought, expression and speech.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The two films bring out various legal issues, primarily on freedom of speech, limitation or recognition of the same. The dynamic nature of law to reflect the existing social demands and prevailing political, cultural and economic forces over historical periods cannot be ignored; however, the fundamentals of this freedom has remained the same since the declaration of the Constitution of United States of America. Separation of powers between the branches of government; precisely the judiciary and legislature has led to conflict of interpretation of law. This has been highlighted in both films, whereby the main actors are faced with criminal charges emanating from their affiliation to unpopular ideological, political or religious beliefs.
Public Opinion on Judicial Power and Impact on Freedom of Speech Therefrom. In Inherit the Wind, Cates is accused of contravening the laws of the state by teaching students about Darwin’s law of evolution of mankind. In the opinion of the prosecutor and other interested parties such as Rev. Jeremiah Brown and Matthew Brandy, Cates’ actions amount to not only an offense against the state, but also an insult to the general opinion of the public and mainstream religious doctrines. The opinion of the public on matters regarding the law of the state supersedes an independent and liberal analysis; therefore, legally detrimental to the accused party.
The same applies to Trumbo. The public seems intolerant to communism and anything affiliated to it. This is the primary reason why the blacklist has been introduced. Government feels like it has the mandate to protect the opinion of the public; even if it means assaulting the freedom of speech, thought and expression of few individuals. From the two films, the courts have been downgraded to institutions of rubber-stamping popular ideologies or beliefs without any substantive reliance on statutory provisions. Public opinion overrides constitutional mandates of the court- to make sound, independent and constitutionally based judgments.
Separation of Powers, Political Interferences and How it Influences Assault to Freedom of Speech. In Trumbo, there is clear interference of Congress on functions and mandates of the judiciary. In this film, Trumbo states that the Congress is using scare tactics to stir hatred and vilification of communists or people who associates themselves with communistic ideologies. This shows lack of clear separation of powers between the congress and the judiciary and how it impacts on freedom of speech. In a normal social setting, any accusation levied against an individual is proved or disproved by the court of law. The same court outlines the provision of law contravened and the consequences arising from such action.
The same applies to other entities such as religious bodies and media within the society. In Inherit the Wind, religion plays a major role during court’s proceedings and it is valid to conclude that the same influenced the ruling made. With divergence of opinions and beliefs within United States’ society, affiliating the state to one of them assaults the freedom of speech and thought. The film shows how a narrow view on particular social concept has negative influence on enjoyment of Bill of Right as provided in First Amendment.
Limitation of Freedom of Speech. Inasmuch as there is prominence of assault on freedom of speech in both films, the fact that both the courts and statutory laws limits this freedom, must not be ignored. In the case of Miller v. California, test for what amounts to obscenity was developed by the court and therefore creating a distinction between freedom of speech and contravention of the law. Additionally, the First Amendment of American Constitution does not protect speech which incites lawlessness, ...