“The Framers [of the Constitution] knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.”
- Democratic Senator and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
Throughout history, the opponents of freedom knew that to succeed in depriving the people of their liberty, they would have to gain control of the flow of information. It may be difficult for us to imagine in the modern information age, but in the past, information was primarily disseminated in three ways: word of mouth, newspapers and from the pulpit.
Coincidentally, these three types of communication were those protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution, with good reason. The history of our nation's fight for freedom can be summed up as a struggle for two things: to free information from control by the Crown and to free ourselves from over taxation. Of course, in fighting for the latter, the former became a very useful tool.
Imagine a world with no Internet, cellphones, iPods, TV, radio, telephones, fax machines, glossy magazines, not even a decent postal system until Franklin established one. Now imagine the government using its military might against the people for speaking out against the injustices being done to them. Clergymen were arrested for their sermons. Journalists were arrested for reporting the truth. Average people were reported for conversations which were considered mutiny against the Crown. How difficult it must have been to pass on enough information to enough people for our Revolution against Great Britain to even begin, much less succeed.
It's no wonder the freedoms of expression were the first to be granted protection under our Constitution.
Throughout history, the opponents of freedom knew that to succeed in depriving the people of their liberty, they would have to gain control of the flow of information. It may be difficult for us to imagine in the modern information age, but in the past, information was primarily disseminated in three ways: word of mouth, newspapers and from the pulpit.Coincidentally, these three types of communication were those protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution, with good reason. The history of our nation's fight for freedom can be summed up as a struggle for two things: to free information from control by the Crown and to free ourselves from over taxation. Of course, in fighting for the latter, the former became a very useful tool.
Imagine a world with no Internet, cellphones, iPods, TV, radio, telephones, fax machines, glossy magazines, not even a decent postal system until Franklin established one. Now imagine the government using its military might against the people for speaking out against the injustices being done to them. Clergymen were arrested for their sermons. Journalists were arrested for reporting the truth. Average people were reported for conversations which were considered mutiny against the Crown. How difficult it must have been to pass on enough information to enough people for our Revolution against Great Britain to even begin, much less succeed.
It's no wonder the freedoms of expression were the first to be granted protection under our Constitution.
They are the single most important class of rights we have as Americans, and some are willing to throw them away for the sake of achieving their political and social goals. The problem, however, is that it is very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. Once you have decided that it is acceptable to censor your opponents, you have created a precedent under which those in power can always censor the opposition. Like it or not, the political pendulum swings back and forth. All of us will - at times - be in the majority and in the minority. All of us will be subject to the same restrictions we place on our opponents. Freedoms are only truly protected when we stand up not only for those with whom we agree, but also for those with whom we disagree.
It is easy to stand up for the rights of those who think the same way we do. No, that's not quite right. It's always difficult to stand up for anyone's rights, but the outrage that that drives us to do so is natural when we identify with those who are most like us.
To recognize that the rights of those on the other side are being trampled upon is far more difficult. It takes integrity as well as the ability to see beyond our own personal interests. It requires us to walk for a few moments in the other side's shoes. We do not need to agree with what is being said, but we must recognize that this could just easily be happening to us.
This is not a matter of agreement or even sympathy. It is, however, a question of consistency. If we believe in freedom, we believe in it for everyone. No exceptions.
Otherwise, we really are talking about privileges rather than rights.
It is easy to stand up for the rights of those who think the same way we do. No, that's not quite right. It's always difficult to stand up for anyone's rights, but the outrage that that drives us to do so is natural when we identify with those who are most like us.
To recognize that the rights of those on the other side are being trampled upon is far more difficult. It takes integrity as well as the ability to see beyond our own personal interests. It requires us to walk for a few moments in the other side's shoes. We do not need to agree with what is being said, but we must recognize that this could just easily be happening to us.
This is not a matter of agreement or even sympathy. It is, however, a question of consistency. If we believe in freedom, we believe in it for everyone. No exceptions.
Otherwise, we really are talking about privileges rather than rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment