The tea party phenomenon has aroused considerable anxiety among the fourth estate. Writers and commentators have weighed in, some questioning the motives of the protestors, some, their intelligence or their sanity and others, their integrity. It seems that free speech has reached the problematic stage.
Dissent is a flame in a society of aggrieved moths. It should come as no surprise, that the aggrieved number among them some with malicious motives, others not so bright and a few who are unprincipled or just obnoxious. That said, how should the disenchanted voice their concern? Should they speak at all? Is it time to contemplate restrictions on free speech?
We somehow survive without any guarantee of free speech rights in the workplace. Our speech is routinely suppressed in private organizations. Only the Congress of the United States is precluded from abridging free speech.
Yes, I find some speech troubling. Scattered tea party participants endorse something bordering on anarchy. Hatemongers, if afforded a forum, will probably use it to promote hate. Politicians abuse the privilege of free speech by lying to us. Bad ideas, poor taste and lies disturb me. But the idea that someone needs to sort through speech and and decide what is permissible truly frightens me.
The fairness doctrine, campaign finance restrictions and hate speech laws all have a common genesis. Some beneficiaries of free speech rights want Congress to limit the exercise of free speech by individuals they perceive as distasteful, uninformed, irritating, influential or wealthy.
There are politicians that believe someone has to play God, to insure that free speech be whittled into fair speech. There are days when I feel particularly well-suited to the task. Despite my unerring moral compass, I do know America is a better and safer place when no one, not even the wise, are allowed to play God. It is not the role of Congress to give weight to anyone's speech. Influence is the province of the consumers of speech, the readers and the listeners.
Appoint me the Secretary of Hate speech supression and I promise that hate speech will be redefined to closely resemble speech that I find offensive. Speech would remain mostly unrestricted except for derogatory remarks directed at the mentally impaired, insults directed at Peggy Noonan and probably the evening programming at MSNBC.
Rush Limbaugh, Alec Baldwin and Rachel Maddow all have a bigger microphone than I have, but we each have but a single vote. I dearly wish that Joy Behar would shut up, but I don't want the law to provide her a megaphone or saddle her with a muzzle.
The founders disdained the idea that wisdom and virtue were concentrated in individuals of a certain station. They dedicated considerable energy to incorporating that belief into the founding documents. The American idea is rooted in "Congress shall make no law." You don't trim a tree at its roots.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment