It is a Freedom from, not a Freedom of
I understand from a radio report this AM that Boston University has implemented new policies that forbid obscene, racist, or sexist chants at athletic events. Apparently the traditional ice hockey cheer of “Rough ‘em Up” was updated by the some expressive students…I think you know what I mean.
What caught my attention was a student who protested this decision. This Unknown BU Student (a/k/a UBUS) said these regulations violated the students first amendment rights to free speech…proving once again that too many of us misunderstand the concept of “Freedom of Speech”. What UBUS wants is not freedom of speech, but freedom from consequences.
We don’t have the freedom to say just anything we want. We have the freedom from the federal government creating laws that abridge free speech.
Amendment I to the US Constitution reads:
“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 was a reaction to the pre-American revolution colonial policy where colonists could be jailed for speaking against the King, British policies, etc. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that people could speak their mind without fear of government retribution.
This is not the same as unlimited freedom to say what we want.
At the most basic level, we are or can be constrained in free expression by the group/organization we choose to be a part of. There is no rule against telling someone they are fat, but our society considers it unacceptable behavior so typically we don’t say things like that.
The merchant who puts out intricately worded ads that use fine print to camouflage real meaning generally lose customers. Merchants who voice personal opinions that are obnoxious to their customers likewise run the risk of losing business.
The musical group Dixie Chicks are the current poster children for this situation .
At the beginning of the Iraq conflict they spoke badly of President Bush while in a foreign country. Their record sales suffered. They complained “what about freedom of speech?” They failed to consider that perhaps those that buy their music might not agree with their position or how they chose to express it. However, they did not go to jail for their expressed opinion. The Chicks got their Freedom of Speech…but that did not mean they got a free ride from the reaction to their comments.
Politicians are regularly chastised and even removed from positions or party affiliation because they announce a different position. Politicians announce their positions on issues. If their constituents disagree, then said politician loses his next election.
There are rules against racist and sexist language in the workplace. You can get fired for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person.
But in all these arenas the regulation is done by the individual, a business organization, a political party, the electorate, the public, etc. It is not done by the federal government.
If a recognized public interest is at stake, there can be restrictions. Speech that needlessly endangers other people is not protected speech. In Schenck v. U.S.(1919), the US Supreme Court set limits on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Junior, wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
We don’t enjoy Freedom of Speech.
We do enjoy a Freedom of Speech without Fear of Government Retribution, which in turn generally allows us to say what we want when we want to.
I hope the UBUS referenced above attends a constitutional law class prior to graduation, and I dearly wish that the oodles and oodles folks who whine because they are not allowed to say something or suffer some backlash from what they say will take the time to read the Bill of Rights and learn what their rights really are.
What caught my attention was a student who protested this decision. This Unknown BU Student (a/k/a UBUS) said these regulations violated the students first amendment rights to free speech…proving once again that too many of us misunderstand the concept of “Freedom of Speech”. What UBUS wants is not freedom of speech, but freedom from consequences.
We don’t have the freedom to say just anything we want. We have the freedom from the federal government creating laws that abridge free speech.
Amendment I to the US Constitution reads:
“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 was a reaction to the pre-American revolution colonial policy where colonists could be jailed for speaking against the King, British policies, etc. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that people could speak their mind without fear of government retribution.
This is not the same as unlimited freedom to say what we want.
At the most basic level, we are or can be constrained in free expression by the group/organization we choose to be a part of. There is no rule against telling someone they are fat, but our society considers it unacceptable behavior so typically we don’t say things like that.
The merchant who puts out intricately worded ads that use fine print to camouflage real meaning generally lose customers. Merchants who voice personal opinions that are obnoxious to their customers likewise run the risk of losing business.
The musical group Dixie Chicks are the current poster children for this situation .
At the beginning of the Iraq conflict they spoke badly of President Bush while in a foreign country. Their record sales suffered. They complained “what about freedom of speech?” They failed to consider that perhaps those that buy their music might not agree with their position or how they chose to express it. However, they did not go to jail for their expressed opinion. The Chicks got their Freedom of Speech…but that did not mean they got a free ride from the reaction to their comments.
Politicians are regularly chastised and even removed from positions or party affiliation because they announce a different position. Politicians announce their positions on issues. If their constituents disagree, then said politician loses his next election.
There are rules against racist and sexist language in the workplace. You can get fired for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person.
But in all these arenas the regulation is done by the individual, a business organization, a political party, the electorate, the public, etc. It is not done by the federal government.
If a recognized public interest is at stake, there can be restrictions. Speech that needlessly endangers other people is not protected speech. In Schenck v. U.S.(1919), the US Supreme Court set limits on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Junior, wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
We don’t enjoy Freedom of Speech.
We do enjoy a Freedom of Speech without Fear of Government Retribution, which in turn generally allows us to say what we want when we want to.
I hope the UBUS referenced above attends a constitutional law class prior to graduation, and I dearly wish that the oodles and oodles folks who whine because they are not allowed to say something or suffer some backlash from what they say will take the time to read the Bill of Rights and learn what their rights really are.
posted by Bwana | 8:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home