Free Speech

Free speech is an interesting concept and a foundation of our nation.  It was considered so important that once the Constitution was ratified it was addressed in the first amendment.  

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This amendment talks about three distinct and separate concerns our founder’s had with the establishment of government.  All three came from their immediate experiences with English rule of the colonies.

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the exercise thereof;” Today this forms the basis for court arguments regarding the separation of church from state and the atheist’s quest for removal of all reference to God in anything involving the government.   I don’t buy that the intent was to separate government from acknowledgement of God.  I think clearly it was designed to prevent specific sanctioned religion leading to the establishment of a theocracy where other views could be subject to criminal punishment.  Many colonists fled Europe because of state persecution and this was a fresh concern, especially when some colonies like Massachusetts where Puritan and others, like Maryland, where Catholic.  To all the founders the concerns that one group would impose their views on others was a major concern as is shown in many of the provisions of the basic document.

“or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”  While specific to limits of the federal government this has also placed limits on the authority of the states and local governments.  Coming from the Kings attempt to quiet rebellion and the abuses of power the colonial governments felt from the throne the representative’s wanted to make sure we could not easily stop dissent with the government.  It is essential to remember the importance of the written word then, and how news flowed from one area to the next.  The founding fathers clearly understood a free press served as an important check to the abuse of power.  As we transition from the traditional newspapers to the electronic medium the importance of a free and vibrant debate has not changed.

Finally, “... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  This right to assemble and to seek correct of government wrongs was one of the critical mistakes made by King George when the colonists sought to resolve their differences with the taxation issued from the Crown.  The founding father’s knew if this was not allowed it would only be a matter of time before the citizens sought a new government for themselves.

This is a long preamble to get to the topic I would like to write about -- “Free Speech,” but I think it important to put into context what I believe I defended our nation for, and what is lacking in today’s electronic world.

When the 1st Amendment was ratified I am not sure our founders could envision all it would come to encompass, but I am confident they understood they were placing the responsibility of governance into the hands of the individual and not the state.  I doubt we spend enough time reflecting on the impact of that choice.  Each of us has the power to govern our speech, and we can either exercise that power or we become renegades and bullies who violate the rights of others.

Each of us, through the choices we make on what we watch, what we buy, and what we encourage are setting the acceptable standards for the speech around us.  For example, we are concerned that pornography is destroying our society!  Many individuals have made unsuccessful efforts to stop it, but as long as  people choose to buy the books, magazines, movies and what not, pornography will flourish.  The best we can do is not support that trade, encourage others and even condemn it, but we do not have the power to stop it if there are people who are willing to pay for it.  As long as it is profitable it remains.

The same holds true for most of the dialogue going on this week.  When rational people use similes and military rhetoric to make a point are they promoting violence?  Should that speech be censored?  My problem with that approach is simple, it leads to the whole dilemma of politically acceptable speech.  Is that really what we want?  Do we really believe if we control what is said the insane will live quietly among us and cease being dangerous?

If the leaders of the liberal movement are willing to tolerate the language of their side without direct condemnation, and the leaders of the conservative movement are willing to tolerate the language of their side then there will be, at best, a limited cease fire but it will all start again as soon as the emotions of this past week are replaced by the zeal of the next campaign.

We will never silence all bullies, we will not quell vulgarity, and we should not stop impassioned debate, but we can  and should expect of our government leadership simple civil discourse.  If we elect leaders whose campaign is built on attacking the opponents personal character should we be surprised when as the President, Speaker, Senator, Governor, or Mayor he or she continues?  We should expect them to be critical of those who do not respect this and IF there is to be positive change we the people cannot reward those who believe the current bounds of our language are too confining, or personal attacks are more effective.  We should not support those who feel they must shock us on a daily basis with increasingly outlandish behavior and language. 

The ball is in our court, are we capable, as our founders believed, of governing our speech, or will this freedom soon be lost because those who believe in government solutions were able to wrest it from us when words lost their meanings, and when profanity and death threats on Twitter became acceptable?