Freedom of Speech

Just a quick aside.

I watched almost all of the impeachment debate yesterday. There were a few statements which struck me, but none so much as that of Representative Dan Newhouse of Washington.  In his short speech he encapsulated what, I believe, a majority of Americans think; that both sides share the blame for tacitly and even directly stoking the violence that occurred this past summer and last Wednesday in Washington, that they (and us as voters and citizens) need to do better, and that the president has added to our toxic, partisan environment, then did nothing when his supporters attacked the seat of our government to disrupt the confirmation of the transfer of power.  

We can certainly debate the false equivalency that Newhouse referred to, can even debate whether Trump's words led directly to the attack or whether that attack might have occurred no matter what was said at that rally, but there seems no doubt that Trump watched on TV as the marchers walked towards the Capitol, watched as the violence began, yet did nothing.  He did not perform his sworn duty to protect our country from all enemies, because they were HIS supporters trying to subvert the tabulation of the electoral count when his campaign of pressure and intimidation against various state legislators and the Vice President failed to achieve that goal.  

For that alone, Trump deserves to be removed from the White House.

With the spate of censorship that has arisen since last Wednesday's insurrection attempt, I thought it relevant to read some of my past posts on the First Amendment, and then comment today on the perceived attacks on this precious right.

The first link is from March 27, 2010 and was a copy of a letter I sent to the Philadelphia Inquirer in response to an article written by Michael Smerconish concerning the protest that had occurred by the members of a Baptist Church during the funeral of a slain, gay Marine.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/03/hateful-speech.html

The next post is from November 12, 2010 and was inspired by the calls for the president to revoke the first amendment rights of a pastor who was going to burn a copy of the Quran.  Interestingly, that call came from Pat Buchanan whose point was that such an action might inspire our enemies to take aggressive action against our soldiers abroad or soft targets here at home.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/09/testing-strength-of-our-freedom.html

The third post attempted to distinguish whether the First Amendment protected all speech, even speech which was a blatant lie.  My point in that post is that when, for instance, those church members mentioned above protested at the funeral of a Marine who had died protecting their rights because they truly believed that gay people are condemned to hell, then, while odious and repugnant, their freedom of speech should be protected.  But, should the speech of a US Senator (or President) who knows that the Constitution does not provide for the Vice President to throw out the state certified electoral results, yet, who, in effect, lies, and continues to propagate that lie to those already angry citizens who then act upon that lie, should that speech be protected by the First Amendment?  And, that just because one has the right to free speech, should it be employed in a way that does harm to another?

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/08/opinions-lies-and-responsible-speech.html

My conclusion at the end of that last post, written on August 23, 2018, is that we should never engage in censorship, that we should assume that all speech is protected regardless, and especially, if we find it to reflect the exact polar opposite of what we believe.  That we should assume that all speech is spoken out of belief in the truth of that speech, even when there are no facts to back it up, or a plethora of facts that contradict it.  That speech that is opinion, is protected.

But, of course, like all freedoms, there are limits to our first amendment rights and the protection it guarantees.  When I say that the 2020 election was ripe with fraud, I am allowed that opinion despite evidence to the contrary if I truly do not believe that evidence.  But am I protected by the first amendment if I know what I am saying is a lie, but I continue to say it anyway?  When one tells lies about another person that get that person in some kind of trouble, they can be sued for libel and jailed if it is proven that they knew it was a lie but said it anyway.  Similarly, if someone tells a mob that person X just killed someone, and that mob hangs person X out of belief of that lie, are not all those involved guilty, those who did the crime and those that perpetuated the lie?

If a Muslim cleric held a legally sanctioned rally in Washington, fired up the crowd by telling them that their legal rights were being denied, exhorted them to walk to the capitol and make their voices heard and demand changes, and then violence ensued which caused the death of a police officer guarding the building, I would imagine that many Americans would call for that cleric's arrest, even though he never mentioned violence in his speech.  And, especially, if he had posted many such inflammatory statements on his tweeter feed or facebook account.

Are this cleric's words protected if he truly believes what he is saying?  Are they protected if he believes what he is saying but also knows his words could lead to violence?

I have said before that great freedoms come with great responsibility.  (I did not make that up, Eleanor Roosevelt is credited with that saying).  Justifying acts which harm others, or violate others rights, because '"I am free to do and say whatever I want", is a poor interpretation of freedom, or at least very childish.  

If, in the exercise of our freedoms, especially the freedom of speech, we are tasked with evaluating our speech in the context of how our words might cause harm or negate the rights of others, how much more important is it for those of influence or political power to be careful when making provocative or inflammatory statements, even if true, let alone those same kind of statements that are knowingly false?

I was not happy to hear that Donald Trump was silenced on the various social networks.  Not happy, not just because I believe that free speech should be restricted in only the most serious situations, but because the President of the United States had chosen to repeat over and over that our elections were fraudulent, even though there were countless rebuttals of those claims by judges and state officials from both sides of the political aisle who ruled against or refuted such charges.  

Does Trump truly believe what he is saying?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  I can no longer decipher when he is lying to just himself, or to all of us including himself.  But does he not hold an even greater responsibility in the exercise of his freedom of speech than the everyday person? Is he not responsible for the actions of those who react to his words given his position of influence? 

When we debate such issues, we often do so as if in an ivory tower, above the realities of life.  In an ideal world, we would not need the first, or any amendment guaranteeing our rights because we would all respect the rights of those with whom we share our homes, our neighborhoods, our country, our planet. We wouldn't dream of telling someone that they could only drink from  a specific water fountain or piss in a specific bathroom, only go to school in a particular neighborhood, or only marry a person of a specific gender.  But, sadly, we do not live in that world.  

It is necessary for us to record our rights in legal documents, to test those rights against the actions of individuals in our courts, and to remember, above all, that when we deny someone else their rights, we deny them for all of us.  And, if in the exercise of our rights we trample on the rights of others, we lessen those rights for ourselves as well.