According to Susan Jacoby, in “A First Amendment Junkie”, “. . .the protection of the constitution should not be extended to any particularly odious or threatening for of speech (although I don’t agree with it)” (17). Here Jacoby is saying that the constitution should continue its job of protection when it comes to any threatening form of speech. At the time Jacoby spoke about her views on the First Amendment it was the beginning of feminists and their uprising. We now need to bring back the topic of free speech to discuss how our knowledge of our everyday aspects of our lives including healthcare and education and how it can be put at risk at the expense of censoring topics for our protection. How literal and absolute should our adherence to the First Amendment be? Although some speech is hateful and harmful, we should maintain an absolute interpretation of the First Amendment because it encourages productive debate, and censorship is a slippery slope. The first reason the First Amendment should maintain an absolute interpretation is for the fact that it encourages productive debate. To begin, debate is not just to argue about a topic but its purpose is to widen our mind. According to Arne Duncan, US Secretary of Education, “debate is not just one of the “great equalizers” for minority achievement and educational opportunity, but also a best practice to produce dynamic Americans proficient in the 4 “Cs” of 21st century skills—critical thinking, communication, collaboration,