The right to…

The NYTimes included a brief, albeit intriguing editorial on the right to free speech, specifically pertaining to the Supreme Court case Snyder v Phelps. The background is that

In March 2006, a week after Corporal Snyder was killed in Iraq, his funeral in Westminster, Md., became a target for Mr. Phelps, the founder and pastor of a Baptist church where most of his flock are his children, grandchildren and in-laws.

Their faith includes the belief that “God hates homosexuality and hates and punishes America for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly in the United States military.” Over the past two decades, they have sought opportunities to trumpet these views in intrusive protests, recently including funerals of soldiers.

Seven of them went to the funeral of Corporal Snyder, who was not gay. While following rules set by a local ordinance and police about where they could protest, they carried signs that said “God Hates the USA” and “Fag troops” and “You’re going to hell.” After the funeral, the church’s Web site said Corporal Snyder’s parents “raised him for the devil.”

I remember discussing this topic, and specifically this group, with my Moral Choice's class when I adjuncted it the other year. There was, no doubt, heated debate and the defense, and rebuttal of, deep views on the subject of where the lines of free speech should be drawn. How long do we allow someone to spew speech that is antagonistic and hateful before we conclude they have overstepped their bounds?

It might be somewhat easier to conclude that someone should be allowed to say what they want as long as their words aren't meant to incite rather than attempt to layout the exact division at which someone should be muzzled. So we attempt to delineate the extremes, but leave the middle area intentionally hazy, to be dealt with when the time precipitates it.

This way of proceeding is exactly what we must do if we are to allow for freedom of speech to continue be as alive as we wish it to be. The courts job is not to spell out every possible circumstance, every possible scenario—it has to offer some, possible a lot of some—concrete perimeters, but it must allow speech to be given under free conditions of law. Even if the speech in question is "'uncommonly contemptible'", and even if there is general consensus of the contemptible nature of the speech, "it is in the interest of the nation that strong language about large issues be protected, even when it is hard to do so."

Chomsky said that "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." The jist of this quote captures what the editorial was getting at: we can not, we must not, allow our disgust for the words spoken to diminish or destroy the freedom given to all. I don't hide my contempt for the fallacious ideas and malicious speech coming from Glenn Beck's mouth; but I do not quibble with his right to have the freedom to say what he does. To stifle his right would be to stifle democracy at its most pure.

(The only thing I do quibble with is this: Beck does not give us news. The claim that what he offers is "news" is repugnant. And the fact that this type of "news" is subsidized by a cable network, no less than an industry, is also repugnant. News outlets no longer give people access to the events of the world. They are now filled only with pundits, which is really not quite right: according to the historical definition of the word a pundit is someone who gives their opinion on a topic of which they are knowledgable—rarely is this criteria met. So a more apt description of these people is "ideologue".)

Mill said that "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." While I agree with Mill, but that does not mean that we should not establish the boundaries of the frontier of this freedom. We need not silence everyone we disagree with, but we can limit the arenas in which individuals can express themselves. We can shield certain groups of people (e.g., children) from having to endure the burden and distress of this freedom—but in writing these words, and in arguing for these limits, have I not undercut myself and drawn my side against the conclusions of the editorial? I don't believe so. A freedom to speak one's mind involves a level of responsibility and self-restraint. We allow drivers the freedom to go where they chose, to drive the car they want, to carry whom they wish—as long as they abide by certain rules and act within certain limitations and constraints, established for the safety and welfare of everyone.

Unrestrained and completely unconstrained freedom of speech can, given the right conditions, be just as harmful as a freedom that is bound and gaged by censorship. We must find a way to allow people to encounter and entertain "unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values" on their own terms, because "a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afriad of its people." Kennedy was right to hope that the inhabitants of a nation could discern and weed out the truth from the falsehood, and I hope that we can continue to see our way through the tireless and difficult process of maintaining a healthy freedom of speech with the help of the angels of our better nature: reason and compromise.