Dean Jellison - July 22, 2005
"Freedom of Speech"
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The Iraqi War has produced much discussion of the right to Freedom of Speech. We have heard many people complain that opinions they have expressed should not be criticized because they are an exercise of the right of free speech, and that to label such opinions as unpatriotic is a serious violation of their rights.
Let’s talk about that. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “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.”
Please note that the language is that of a restraint on government powers.
It was not the intention of the people who drafted our Constitution to provide a right for people to say anything they want without cost or consequence. Thus, they did not say free speech, they said freedom of speech. Exercising that Freedom, you can say what you please and you will bear the consequences of having done so. Someone who hears you may disagree with what you have said and may exercise that same freedom, and may call you names or may characterize your ideas by an onerous label such as idiotic, stupid, or even unpatriotic. If you get mad and punch him in the nose, that is a consequence he bears for having exercised his right. You may wind up paying a fine for assault because you chose not to stay with your protected right to freedom of speech and that is a consequence or cost that you bear because you stepped outside the constitutionally protected conduct.
The Freedom of Speech that is protected by the Constitution is by no means unlimited. There are obvious limitations such as criminal penalties for a false shout of “Fire” in a crowded place. Many states and cities make the uttering of “fighting words” a criminal act. Slander, a form of defamation, is the basis of a civil suit for damages in all jurisdictions although the definition varies from place to place. A statement that a named person has committed a crime is called slander per se and the victim has only to prove that the words were uttered to make a case. As I listen to modern political talk, with claims of robbery, stealing, treason, bribery, and so forth, I wonder why the courts are not full of damage actions arising from this abuse of the freedom of speech. . It should be noted that ‘truth’ is always a defense, but you must be able to prove it.
Some people believe that freedom of speech gives them the right to ignore police crowd control measures and barriers. Not true. A police action to maintain order is not rendered improper because someone wants to get closer in exercising the right to freedom of speech. It seems that as we get more concerned with security from terrorism, the Courts will be imposing more severe penalties for offenses like disorderly conduct and trespassing. If you regard such actions as freedom of speech, the exercise of that freedom will likely become much more expensive.
As your feathers are ruffled by someone labeling your expression of opinion as dumb or unpatriotic or worse, remember that if he wasn’t able to say those things, then you might not have been able to say what you said either.
I hope this analysis will help all of you recognize that fundamental rights like freedom of speech are not “Free”, are in fact very expensive and will be lost unless you and your peers make the necessary effort to preserve those rights.
This is Dean Jellison. Thanks for listening.
|
|
