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.
It is a far ranging statement, covering many of the issues which have been hotly debated throughout our history, no less so than in today's partisan political environment.
For this post I would like to discuss the freedom of speech from the standpoint of when we should limit such freedom as was recently done by some social media companies against a certain far right commentator.
In some ways, it is not that difficult to decide when or if someone's first amendment right should be abrogated, either temporarily or longer. Never!
Hate speech that inflames prejudice, perhaps even emboldening acts of violence is horrible but it is just talk; those who commit the acts, once tried, convicted and incarcerated, reduces the ground upon which hate speech plants its odious seeds. As has been said so many times before, shining light on such anti-human sentiment is the best defense against its spread.
Political opinion which castigates those of the opposing party, while divisive, is preferable to political speech which blindly agrees with those in power, either to seek favor by those that rule or because only speech approved by the leader is tolerated.
Even opinions with no facts to back them up, should be tolerated. Education, information and truth will eventually bring to light those statements without merit but even then, when an opinion is not worth the time it takes to utter the syllables, it should be protected if uttered sincerely. Engaging someone with an opinion that differs from yours is the cornerstone of our democracy; shout downs do not offer substantive proof of one's thoughts.
But what about lies? Are lies also protected by the First Amendment?
To me, opinions, honestly stated, whether based on fact or fiction, whether dipped in prejudice or spirituality, must be separated from statements made with full knowledge that it is based on falsehood. And therein lies the problem.
When a commentator, whether far right or far left, knowingly spreads information that has no basis in fact, is that speech still protected by the first amendment, or does this precious right assume a truthfulness in the speaker? Everyone says things that are wrong, without awareness, but what of those who lie to garner fame or power or money?
During the years when Donald Trump questioned the birth country of President Obama, did he truly believe that Obama was not born in America, or merely use that lie to achieve popularity among people all too willing to delegitimize the presidency of the first African American? If the former, Trump is blameless, even supported by me to say something that I do not believe but that he did believe. But if the latter, then that is where the rubber hits the road, that is where responsible speech must be demanded by the electorate of its politicians and political commentators.
And, this is not just limited to politics.
What about those con men among us who use religion to peddle lies and misinformation, not because they believe in some of the nebulous tenets of religion, but to make lots of money? Or the corporation or institution that spews advertisements and public proclamations about the safety of their product (cigarettes, fracking, pedophile priests)?
One might say that telling non-truths, whether it be in politics, business, religion or even with one's spouse of family, is an everyday occurrence, almost expected.
I saw a poll which asked if the President had lied about his involvement in an extramarital affair. Almost 60% said Yes. Then, a follow up question, should he be impeached, and less than 40% replied in the affirmative. But guess what, that poll was done during the Clinton Administration! Even then, we were OK with a lie if we supported the liar, as, at the time, Clinton's popularity was a bit over 60%.
Similarly, those who support President Trump today, even those who admit they think he has lied about his involvement with Stormy Daniels among others, are OK with a lie and do not support impeachment.
If we are OK with lies, with the lies that we expect, and sometimes embrace from our politicians, the lies that are the basis of all advertisements from the business world, the lies that we tell ourselves, the big one we believe that we can ignore our democracy by staying home on election day and still get good governance, down to the little ones we believe when we think we can eat or drink whatever we want then take a pill to assuage the negative consequence of doing so, then what do we make of our belief in the first amendment?
Opinions do not need to be fact based, but we might want to educate ourselves when our opinion runs contrary to evidence as opposed to being proud of our ignorance.
Lies eat away at our freedom of speech but creating a false equivalence between an honest, but uniformed opinion and an attempt to sway perspective for personal gain is not a reason to default to the first amendment to justify our lies.
Responsible speech is the ultimate protection, the ultimate guarantee that our freedom of speech will remain a right that is worth the paper it is printed on.
No comments:
Post a Comment