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?
2 comments:
Words have not lost their meaning. All the alphabet is still intact and letters do make words and meaning is not only possible it is resident. Simile and metaphor may be too sophisticated for some...but meaning will remain.
Malaprops, misunderstandings and deconstructive denial of meaning not withstanding...there is no need to reduce in any way the freedom of speech as guarenteed by the Constitution.
You know that maturity recognizes that true freedom is the ability to take the highest road...tadpoles - maybe not ...but we mustn't give up freedoms because of the less mature, un civil or insensitive amongst us.
It seems that freedom and responsibility must have kissed somewhere in the heavens...because they sure make good partners. But even when there are unworthy applications of freedom...we mustn't let the universal of freedom itself be diminished.
I cannot recall to whom the quote was attributed, but I read it earlier this week. Was it Edmund Burke, Arnold Toynbee, Edward Gibbon? The paraphrased thought was this: as civic virtue in a society decreases, government and law increases. Of course there's an irony in this: in a lawless society , there is little chance for virtue. But again it's the absence of virtue that results in lawlessness.
I agree with your point about the establishment clause, that the clear intent of the founders was not the removal of God, or the idea of God, from the public square or from the people's government, but rather the establishment of an official religion. Some will object that any vestige of Judeo-Christian theology in the cultural baggage of our government or society tends toward 'establishment', and so advocate for equal protection for Wiccan or 'turtles all the way down' or purging of any tinge of metaphysical reference. But the amendment merely states that Congress shall make no law regarding such. Some tensions will never be ironed out on this side of the chasm. Our gov't is based on the ideal of the people being self-governing, and if we as individuals fail in that, it is only a matter of time before civil society dissolves. As Burke did say: "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."
p.s. thanks for the kind words over at Searock
Post a Comment