“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.”
Freedom of speech can be perhaps more accurately defined as freedom of expression. A photo or drawing or symbolic action can represent this particular right just as easily as written or spoken words. One could theoretically choose to fart in the boss’s office when she’s not around and that would be self-expression. Incidentally, I have never done this.
Freedom of the press overlaps significantly with freedom of speech. The amount of published information and opinion continues to increase exponentially as our population gets more and more plugged in to the Internet. Blogs in particular blend the definition of free speech with free press. A blog is an exercise in free speech published in a public forum, the ultimate independent op-ed.
When the CON was written, the press consisted of printed news. There were no radios, TVs, computers or telegraphs. Even the nuances of semaphore were not fully explored. Today, the Internet sets up everyone from mainstream media sources to the Bob Loblaw Law Blog as “the press”. I say this is a good thing. Mainstream sources are not the government watchdogs they used to be. Everyone has an agenda. Facts are overlooked when they don’t support that agenda. Again, I say that can be a good thing.
WHAT?!? How can ignoring facts and spinning a story to fit your own personal goals be good?
Ok, it’s NOT good when the source purports to be neutral and presents supposition as fact. But it is completely liberating and excellent when a hundred people state their opinions and back them up with select facts. That means a hundred different viewpoints. Even reading a handful of different sources helps each of us refine our own thoughts on an issue.
Now that I have clearly stated that I believe everyone should be able to say or print whatever they want, I’ll briefly explore some potential problems with that. There’s treason, hate speech and of course, porn! Or slippery slope, slippery slope and…never mind.
The slippery slope arises when even small acts start to be counted as treason due to a progression of sensitivity. There are some pretty clear cases of treason. Providing the location of your country’s top secret military base, revealing the technology behind your country’s top secret mind control device or bragging about how Brenda Rafalski let you touch her in top secret areas all come to mind as direct treason. The problem with using the treason label is that things can go too far. One day you can’t reveal military codes, the next you can’t burn iconic symbols of your nation then suddenly you can’t even comment that you think the President’s healthcare mandate is a mistake. Citizens should always be free to criticize their government without fear of wire-taps without due process (cough, Patriot Act).
Next we have hate speech. It’s often cruel, hurtful and focused on a particular race, lifestyle or other aspect of a group of people. Despite all that, it’s completely legal in the U.S. Good! We are not a free civilization if we can’t state our opinions, even when those opinions are short-sighted and bigoted. This turns into another slippery slope type situation if nasty comments begin to be banned. Also, we do have recourse when the hate speech is unfounded. At that point, we call it defamation (or libel if it’s published). We can litigate the heck out of folks for false statements.
Now I believe I mentioned porn earlier. I saved it for last to try to keep male attention throughout this long ramble. This is a situation that we are really still feeling out. In legal terms, anything considered not socially acceptable is considered “obscenity”. The problem with obscenity is that every generation, every social niche, every subculture, every person has a different picture of what is obscene. What is acceptable to one person may rub another the wrong way. There is little consistency in defining the concept as it changes constantly.
So how do we determine if porn is obscene? The only way I can see to fairly define this is to ask if it violates the rights of someone else. For instance, child pornography most definitely violates the rights of another person. Hence, it is completely illegal to produce and distribute that product. Owning it is also illegal, but whether that specifically violates anyone’s rights is another topic.
In general, if we want to remain in freedom and liberty, we can’t restrict people from expressing their opinions. It is wrong to violate the rights of others via those same expressions, but how can you legislate against an opinion? It’s problematic at best. The framers of the CON were rebels who expressed their own opinions in opposition to the powers that were. They would not have wanted us to try to control each other. It looks like we just have to depend on people’s parents to raise them right.
No comments:
Post a Comment