Freedom of Speech
Yesterday I posted a comment on a blog written by Peter Abel at Donklephant entitled Can Speech Be an Act of Treason/War? It can be found at:
http://donklephant.com/2007/09/27/can-speech-be-an-act-of-treasonwar/
My comment seems to have struck a chord. It was reposted by the blogs owner on the same website. Please note that JD did not write this comment and I am not affiliated with JD’s Neoconniseures. He is, however, on my friend list and I visit his web site from time to time. My previous blog below (MoveOn Sparks Controversy) was also a comment on his blog.
I am posting the comment in its entirety here. We must never forget the importance of Freedom of Speech in a civilized and democratic society. Without it - there is no democracy.
Freedom of speech is a hallmark of democratic society. It was important enough that our founding fathers spelled it out fairly succinctly in the FIRST amendment to the Constitution. It is important because freedom of expression is one of the tools that a liberated people can use to prevent oppression and injustice and to assure the survival of democracy. But it comes with a price tag, it means that citizens will sometimes be exposed to opinions and viewpoints with which they do not agree. But it’s a small price to pay for freedom.
I do not agree with the tactic employed by MoveOn in the recent ad. But I do think that a culture as advanced as that of the US has the capacity to recognize that some expression may cross a line of civility and decorum and nevertheless be protected by the Constitution. You have to take the good with the bad - why is that so hard for people to comprehend? The kind of speech that is not protected by the Constitution is that kind of expression that is patently offensive or obscene - like shouting vulgarities in Church - surely noone would recognize such speech as protected by the Constitution. But other speech, unless it is patently offensive and out of place, is protected - as rightly it should be.
So what did MoveOn do wrong? Instead of attacking policies, statistics, and other substantive issues related to the war, they leveled a personal attack at a millitary officer who was acting in an official capacity. The ad in question could have hoped to achieve little other than to attack the personal integrity of the General. While this is undoubtedly out of bounds - it is not unconstitutional and should not be criminalized. (And it shouldn’t have even been discussed!) Unfortunately, neither of our political parties seems to have much problem with “making it personal”. We seem to have a penchant in this country for having no decorum or civility when it comes to politics. If we don’t like the opinions of our political opponents we simply move to attack them personally - its much easier to attack the person - rather than put forth the effort to win the hearts and minds of the American people through evidence, logic, discussion, debate etc. Believe me when I say that MoveOn does not have the market cornered on that tactic.
Whether we like it or not, when we talk about our brave soldiers fighting for freedom, one of the basic and fundamental rights they are fighting either to protect or establish is freedom of speech. It is a precious and sacred right that should be regarded with great reverence and respect. It should not be trivialized or become subject to erosion because it is sometimes inconvenient or uncomfortable. This does not mean that we have to give credence to those who cross the line. The best approach to dealing with this type of expression is to just ignore it - or make a single dignified statement about why the message or tactic employed lends nothing useful to the debate.
It’s high time that mainstream American’s impose some contraint on the tone and tenor of political debate. We should not tolerate attacks that are purely personal in nature. Nor should we tolerate attempts to silence debate about a war by allowing those one one side of the debate to claim that those who do not support it are unpatriotic or unsupportive of our troops. Regardless of one’s position on the issues, one should recognize bunk when it surfaces.
