Free Speech is the safety valve for disagreements in a free society. When there is "bad" speech, such as racial slurs or junk science, the best cure is "more" speech.
In the time that I have been alive, I've seen a lot of changes in our society's views of free speech. We've come to accept political correctness, prohibition of broadly defined "hate speech", and the empowering of anyone who is offended by anything.
A lot of people who ought to know better (like newspaper editors and school boards) often have bizarre views about what sort of speech is protected by the First Amendment. Attempting even a partial list of examples would make this post entirely too long, but I can't resist noting just one. When Howard Dean was still in the Presidential race, a supporter of another candidate reportedly heckled Dean. To the rescue came Al Franken, who in his words "got down low and took his legs out." In other words, Franken committed the crime of battery. His reason, again in his words, was that "I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down." That makes me slightly afraid of my freedom of speech, at least if Franken is in the room. No arrests in the incident so far.
So what is free speech, and why is it important? Does it mean that Girls Gone Wild videos are protected speech? Yes, it does, but that is not the real point and reason for the First Amendment, now is it?
In the case of Whitney v. California, decided way back in 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that is was unconstitutional to restrict or criminalize the speech of a communist party organizer.
Justice Brandeis, in an oft-cited and brilliant concurring opinion, said the following. I am tempted to type out the full text of his opinion, but will attempt to keep it brief:
"Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties...They valued liberty both as and end and as a means...They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth..."
"Fear of serious injury [from 'bad' speech] cannot alone justify suppression of free speech...It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one."
And here is the conclusion, the really good part: "[when one encounters 'bad' speech] the remedy to be applied IS MORE SPEECH, NOT ENFORCED SILENCE. ONLY AN EMERGENCY CAN JUSTIFY REPRESSION."
"Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition...unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious."
What a wonderful all-American idea. Suppressed speech leads to desperation, and open exchange leads to freedom and resolution of disputes. Where have the principles the Supreme Court talked about gone since 1927?
Are high school football players saying a prayer a serious and imminent evil?
Is the Pledge of Allegiance a serious and imminent evil?
Is a student wearing a pro-life t-shirt to school a serious and imminent evil?
Of course not, and I'm sure you can come up with your own ironic examples. We have, as a nation, turned our back on the notion of free speech as the safety valve of society and instead embraced the principle of protecting, above all and at all costs, the rights of anyone who might be offended to not even run the risk of being offended. Argue that if you will; I submit to you that "not offending" has effectively replaced the notion of free speech, and that the First Amendment is dying from neglect.
So what is the cost of turning off the safety valve? In America, so far, the cost has not been too great. With notable exceptions, the suppression of the views of many at the hands of political correctness and the courts have not yet led to catastrophic violence borne of desperation and alienation.
Elsewhere, the story is shaping up differently. For example, in France, their government recently outlawed head scarves in schools as worn by devout Muslims. To make things fair, they also outlawed Christian and Jewish symbols. To them, the remedy for speech that they fear or disapprove of is to ban all speech. They took away the safety valve for everyone. The result? Islamic extremist groups have promised to bathe their streets in blood, and I think they just might.
It comes down to this: the French do not really believe in free speech. In an attempt to solve the problem of assimilating large numbers of people who do not share traditional French traditions, they have shut down the expression of everyone, believing that the only way to go is universal secularism (which means enforced belief in nothing in particular). It will backfire, I am sad to say, and people will die as a result. I am not trying to be overly dramatic: the islamists have promised blood, and have proven themselves to be trustworthy in that regard.
It also comes down to this: the Americans do not really believe in free speech. The Americans believe in avoiding the possibility that anyone, ever, might be offended. What, then, are those who believe strongly in SOMETHING to do? Before they could express themselves and argue, but in the age of political correctness and "hate speech", what do we really expect people to do with their beliefs? Simply pretend that they do not have them?
In the time that I have been alive, I've seen a lot of changes in our society's views of free speech. We've come to accept political correctness, prohibition of broadly defined "hate speech", and the empowering of anyone who is offended by anything.
A lot of people who ought to know better (like newspaper editors and school boards) often have bizarre views about what sort of speech is protected by the First Amendment. Attempting even a partial list of examples would make this post entirely too long, but I can't resist noting just one. When Howard Dean was still in the Presidential race, a supporter of another candidate reportedly heckled Dean. To the rescue came Al Franken, who in his words "got down low and took his legs out." In other words, Franken committed the crime of battery. His reason, again in his words, was that "I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down." That makes me slightly afraid of my freedom of speech, at least if Franken is in the room. No arrests in the incident so far.
So what is free speech, and why is it important? Does it mean that Girls Gone Wild videos are protected speech? Yes, it does, but that is not the real point and reason for the First Amendment, now is it?
In the case of Whitney v. California, decided way back in 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that is was unconstitutional to restrict or criminalize the speech of a communist party organizer.
Justice Brandeis, in an oft-cited and brilliant concurring opinion, said the following. I am tempted to type out the full text of his opinion, but will attempt to keep it brief:
"Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties...They valued liberty both as and end and as a means...They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth..."
"Fear of serious injury [from 'bad' speech] cannot alone justify suppression of free speech...It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one."
And here is the conclusion, the really good part: "[when one encounters 'bad' speech] the remedy to be applied IS MORE SPEECH, NOT ENFORCED SILENCE. ONLY AN EMERGENCY CAN JUSTIFY REPRESSION."
"Moreover, even imminent danger cannot justify resort to prohibition...unless the evil apprehended is relatively serious."
What a wonderful all-American idea. Suppressed speech leads to desperation, and open exchange leads to freedom and resolution of disputes. Where have the principles the Supreme Court talked about gone since 1927?
Are high school football players saying a prayer a serious and imminent evil?
Is the Pledge of Allegiance a serious and imminent evil?
Is a student wearing a pro-life t-shirt to school a serious and imminent evil?
Of course not, and I'm sure you can come up with your own ironic examples. We have, as a nation, turned our back on the notion of free speech as the safety valve of society and instead embraced the principle of protecting, above all and at all costs, the rights of anyone who might be offended to not even run the risk of being offended. Argue that if you will; I submit to you that "not offending" has effectively replaced the notion of free speech, and that the First Amendment is dying from neglect.
So what is the cost of turning off the safety valve? In America, so far, the cost has not been too great. With notable exceptions, the suppression of the views of many at the hands of political correctness and the courts have not yet led to catastrophic violence borne of desperation and alienation.
Elsewhere, the story is shaping up differently. For example, in France, their government recently outlawed head scarves in schools as worn by devout Muslims. To make things fair, they also outlawed Christian and Jewish symbols. To them, the remedy for speech that they fear or disapprove of is to ban all speech. They took away the safety valve for everyone. The result? Islamic extremist groups have promised to bathe their streets in blood, and I think they just might.
It comes down to this: the French do not really believe in free speech. In an attempt to solve the problem of assimilating large numbers of people who do not share traditional French traditions, they have shut down the expression of everyone, believing that the only way to go is universal secularism (which means enforced belief in nothing in particular). It will backfire, I am sad to say, and people will die as a result. I am not trying to be overly dramatic: the islamists have promised blood, and have proven themselves to be trustworthy in that regard.
It also comes down to this: the Americans do not really believe in free speech. The Americans believe in avoiding the possibility that anyone, ever, might be offended. What, then, are those who believe strongly in SOMETHING to do? Before they could express themselves and argue, but in the age of political correctness and "hate speech", what do we really expect people to do with their beliefs? Simply pretend that they do not have them?
