“Freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they have or the views they express or the words they speak or write.”
Justice Hugo Black
We have recently been witness to several news items which do not bode well for the preservation of our most fundamental liberty, freedom of speech. In almost ever instance, the culprit is our government and, by implication, our elected representatives who have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Last December, the FCC pressured ABC affiliates to abandon their planned airing of The Saving of Private Ryan, one of the most critically acclaimed and realistic movies dealing with the post-D-Day period during World War II. In the wake of Janet Jackson’s publicity flashing, the government nannies began threatening broadcasters with hefty fines if they broadcast “indecent” material. Instead of taking a principled stand against the brown shirts at the FCC, many ABC stations opted for a safe harbor and cancelled the movie. Although the movie had been previously broadcast over the public airwaves, the use of the “F” bomb, a word nearly every grade school child has heard repeatedly, whether listening to rap and hip hop music, while watching cable TV or on the playground, was a potential lightening rod for criticism.
Regulations issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control enable our government to bar U.S. companies from “publishing the works by dissident writers from countries under sanction” without prior approval of federal censors. Publishers face fines of up to $1 million and individuals 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for violations. Under the guise of protecting “national security”, our government is complicit in proactively supporting the censorship efforts of the despots ruling those sanctioned nations.
Harvard president, Larry Summers, has been vilified for his remarks suggesting that there may be some gender related basis for the lack of women succeeding in certain academic disciplines; although there remains rational debate on the real and perceived emotional and intellectual differences between males and females. Professor Ward Churchill, whose irrational pronouncements comparing the 9/11 victims to Adolph Eichmann may be insensitive and inflammatory, has drawn the ire of the victims families, Colorado tax payers and the vast majority of Americans. In both instances, calls for their ouster have been widespread.
Conservative protestors at a 2004 gay Outfest in Philadelphia discovered their speech is also under siege. The city’s District Attorney’s decision to file hate crime and felony charges is a clear indicator that their thoughts and use of “hateful” and “disgusting” words, not the conduct, is worthy of prosecution.
In this age of political correctness, federal and state legislatures continue to enact hate speech, ethnic intimidation and other laws to protect ever larger segments of the population from having to listen to any speech they may find offensive. What part of “Congress shall make no law respecting … or abridging the freedom of speech” do our elected representatives and their minions not understand?
More alarming are the results of Knight Foundation a national study of high school students who view the First Amendment as a “second rate” issue. In fact, students as a whole would impose more restrictive measures on protected rights than today’s adults. 75% think flag burning is illegal and 50% believe the government can restrict material on the Internet and censor the press. Whether from benign neglect, a lack of appreciation or knowledge on the part to teachers it is clear schools fail to impart the values embodied in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and other Amendments.
President Bush is fond of citing the sacrifices of our service men in harm’s way and tells the public we are either with him or against the country. Perhaps he ought to mull on Voltaire’s words, “Although I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!”
The right of free speech not only affords every citizen the unfettered right and opportunity to air opinions openly and publicly, and without fear of reprisal or retribution … it also requires an even more profound obligation … to respect the same rights when exercised by others, no matter how offensive, insensitive, uncivil or even hateful their words or ideas may be.
