Free Speech In Reverse

Many Americans have a reversed notion of the meaning of Free Speech.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, guarantees several freedoms.   It is short and sweet, but leaves a lot to future interpretation, legislation, and court decisions to create the boundaries on this liberty.

Here is the text of the First Amendment:

Amendment I 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. 

This amendment protects the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.  It was adopted on December 15, 1791.

What goes on now with the fundamental liberty of Free Speech ?   The exercise of Free Speech has reached a great divide. 

Free Speech is highly exercised more by extremists who are forceful and committed to their cause.  To anyone who disagrees out loud, the extremist push-back is pronounced and often broadcast by public media who either support the cause, or just want to focus on divisive ideas that attract viewers.  (Does it, really?)

This pushback has intimidated many people from speaking out.  Many citizens fear to state their thoughts in case it might offend someone with certain hypersensitivities.  (The Fear Factor).

This post was prompted by the recent Pro-Hamas protests (verging on anti-semitism) at college campuses.  (We will reserve discussion on the misinformed and gullible state of the students who joined that “cause”).

The media reporters on the scenes worked to elicit opinions from the participants about their rights to protest.  The common response was “This is Free Speech” or “This is our right in America.”    Well, they are wrong, and they have their knowledge of Free Speech reversed.

The occupation of streets, property, and buildings is not a protected freedom.  It is a violation of law.  It is a risk to the safety, security, and freedom of other citizens

For those who remember the Viet Nam protest of the Sixties and early Seventies, the campus protests were vast and violent.  Many were led by a group of organizers such as SDS and the Weathermen.  High profile leaders were Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Tom Hayden.  These individuals were brought to justice and convicted in Federal Court.  (Note that the convictions were overturned on appeal, not because of the merits of the evidence or the law, but because of bias by the presiding judge which was palpable.  If you are interested, you can read the fascinating chronicle of the trial of the Chicago 7 in a book titled “The Tales of Hoffman” edited by Mark Levine and others).

The Viet Nam protest era largely ended in tragedy with the deaths of four students by the National Guard at Kent State University in 1970.  (Whether the first shot was a bad mistake or justified by imminent threat is still an open debate.  It had been a violent protest.)

This is a lesson in what happens when protest without boundaries is left to spread.  It takes strong political and legal leadership to bring such actions back within the law.  Of course, prosecutors do not like to authorize mass arrests of protestors.  There are better ways to quell the situations. 

Prosecution of the organizers and professional agitators would make a big difference. Convictions for Incitement to Riot or Conspiracy to commit crimes would deter people with bad intent.

The citizens of America are protected by First Amendment Rights.  However, this Freedom must be protected itself, or we lose it.    Exercise your right to speak your thoughts, and petition government leaders to do the right things. 

And, vote for candidates who are committed to protecting our rights and to real law enforcement according to the Constitutional mandate of the office.

David Hollaender

Cogport.com

6/2/2024