THE FLIP SIDE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." This partial iteration of an important component of the First Amendment to our Constitution is universally known, although not always understood. Initially, this amendment referred only to what the federal government could or could not do. State constitutions had their own "Bill of Rights." Over time the declaration, which was revolutionary in 1791, assisted by Supreme Court interpretations of the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment, gained legitimacy in all states. Today, "Freedom of Speech" is accepted as a principle which supports the freedom of individuals or communities to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal action by the government. Internationally, the right to freedom of expression has been recognized as a human right in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" adopted by the United Nations on December 10, 1948. While the concept may have principally and generally been accepted, it certainly was not always universally popular. No sooner did Johannes Gutenberg invent the printing press in 1436, facilitating the dissemination of heretofore alien ideas and challenging viewpoints that used to be the purview of the clergy, or the Roman Catholic Church reacted defensively. It published an index of forbidden texts, "to prevent the contamination of the faith or the corruption of morals through the reading of theologically erroneous or immoral books." Our national experience was not terribly different. The scope of the amendment changed over time, influenced by historical and political situations. As early as 1798, when our country envisioned war with France, the Federalists, who controlled Congress, passed the "Alien and Sedition Act" which made it a crime to publish any "false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. These laws were unpopular from the outset, and were gradually repealed after the party's defeat in the election of 1800. The "Red Scare" periods following the Russian Revolution in 1917 and the tumult surrounding the "McCarthy" inquisitions during the early 1950s generated similar legislation. During the 1960s and 1970s much of the debate about "free speech" took place on university campuses. Mario Savio's "Free Speech Movement" at U.C. Berkeley in 1964 was a case in point. Savio's objective was to abolish all restrictions on students' free speech rights throughout the University of California system. He ultimately won out. Half a century later, the university was confronted by a planned "free speech week" featuring ultra conservative Milo Yiannopoulos. After numerous protests and more than 100 faculty signed a letter stating: "We support robust debate, but we cannot abide by harassment, slander, defamation and hate speech," his invitation was ultimately rescinded. The point is that exercising "Free Speech" rules does not necessarily refer to allowing a debate between politically opposing ideas, it is an integrity issue. We will listen to anyone supporting our point of view. We are uncomfortable and often unwilling to even consider unpopular contrary ideas. In the case of "Free Speech Week," the university administration essentially censored its students' right to listen to non-conforming perspectives. And while shouting down speakers we don't like, a tactic frequently employed, may arguably be an expression of "free speech," it also censors the right of an audience to receive information. All speech is not equal. Some things are true - some things are not. Figuring out how to tell the difference requires the freedom to listen. As pundits have pointed out, America has no problem with speech. It has a problem with listening. Some would go as far as suggesting that we have an obligation to listen. Speaking and listening do not mean much without each other. Today, "Freedom of Speech" does not only refer to the right to express or disseminate information and ideas. It also includes the right to seek, to receive and impart information and ideas. The notion that freedom of speech on college and university campuses is "under siege," as reported by the Goldwater Institute in 2017, is no longer a liberal or conservative conviction. The freedom to hear or debate speech with which students disagree, or protect speech which some may find bigoted or offensive, is an essential part of academic freedom, and an indispensable element in fostering critical thinking skills. Off campus the same holds true. Our unwillingness to at least listen to viewpoints we don't agree with lies at the core of our national proclivity for mental rigidity, our obstinate aversion to consider each other's perspectives. It appears that many of us prefer to live in a homogeneous space where we hear plenty of speech, safely filtered through the congenial viewpoint of our chosen cable-news channel, social media group or newspaper. Many of these implicitly employ a form of Orwellian thought control on the premise that much of their audience is either ill equipped or too lazy to engage in an intelligent thought process. Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die. If we as a people are to be the master of our fate and of our elected government, we must be well informed and have access to all information, ideas and points of view. Mass ignorance is a breeding ground for oppression and tyranny. Theo Wierdsma

POLITICAL PARALYSIS ON THE POTOMAC

So much for planned dialogue and carefully considered discussions. Given the discord exhibited in the House of Representatives struggling to agree on a parliamentary leader and presiding officer for the 118th Congress, it feels imperative to pay some attention to this process. It seems clear that many of us are perplexed about what is taking place at the pinnacle of political power only two years after the insurrection of January 6, 2020. In a way, the process, while constitutionally mandated, represents an outgrowth of what led to that inauspicious day. All but two of the group of far-right republican members opposing the selection of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker were election deniers in 2020. They, essentially, want to function as a third party and upset our entire system. Most of us seem to have committed to preserve our democratic traditions and values. However, not all of us agree on what that means, and how we get there remains contentious. The impasse in the House, which left the institution paralyzed until it selected a new Speaker, reverberated throughout our government. Article I, section 2 of our Constitution mandates that the House of Representatives needs to choose its presiding officer before it is allowed to transact business. The Speaker chairs the institution's Rules Committee, is responsible for administering the oath of office to its members, giving them permission to speak on the House floor, appointing members to committees, sending bills to committees and signing bills and resolutions that pass in the House. Besides, the Speaker of the House is also second in line, behind the Vice President, to become president should the latter be unable to fulfill his or her duties. So yes! Selecting a Speaker is a big deal. The office originated in the British House of Commons during the 14th century. In the British system the Speaker had allegiances to the legislative body as well as to the sovereign, serving in that capacity as the monarch's representative in the Commons. Ultimately, the American speakership followed this example and became a product of politics, claiming sole authority to run the House's business.Typically, the leader of the majority party will be elected to this position. His or her election requires a majority vote of seated members. What we observed during the past week was not a debate over policy, but a struggle for power within the majority Republican party, which gained a slim majority during the last election. Kevin McCarthy ultimately won the battle for Speaker on the 15th ballot, with no votes to spare. However, he lost the contest for power, since he had to agree to significant concessions to get the votes he needed. His tumultuous ascent was on full display when, after he failed to succeed after the 14th go-around, reminiscent to a violent incident that took place in 1856, when Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina entered the Senate chamber and repeatedly struck Senator Charles Sumner over the head with a cane, Mike Rogers of Alabama took a swing at Matt Gaetz of Florida who was blamed for failure on that vote. This drawn-out balloting is not entirely unprecedented in our history. Since 1789, the House has selected a Speaker 127 times. Only 14 times did the election require multiple ballots. Thirteen of these occurred before the Civil War when party divisions were more nebulous.The most notorious of these was the election of Nathaniel Prentice Banks, who, in 1856, won by two votes after 133 ballots, taking two months and a resolution to decide by plurality of the votes. The previous record was claimed by Howell Cobb in 1849, who won in 63 tries. The last time a Speaker election required two or more votes was in 1923 when Speaker Frederic Huntington Gillett managed to secure the position on the 9th ballot. I suspect that Representative McCarthy's success will become part of history as well. However, completing this round of balloting won't resolve the paralysis. The Republican Party only has a ten vote advantage over Democrats in the House. Margins are slim. Besides, Speaker McCarthy bargained away much of his power to secure the votes he needed. One of the most ominous rules he agreed to adjust is the "motion to vacate," essentially a vote of no confidence, allowing any member of the House to offer a request for the Speaker to step down. This procedure was instrumental in shortening the tenure of former Speakers Paul Ryan and John Boehner. Upon taking charge in 2018, Nancy Pelosi changed the rule to limit its use. However, Mr. McCarthy's right-wing opposition forced him to agree to reduce the threshold back to one single member. This essentially forces the Speaker to constantly walk a high-wire act. Any one representative in his party will hence be able to start this paralytic procedure all over again. This change and other adjustments to the rules of the House insure that Kevin McCarthy is slated to become the weakest Speaker of the House in modern days, beholden to a small group of defectors in his party. He will likely be more of a constitutional figurehead than a powerful party leader. The paralysis is far from over. We may be in for a long two years. Theo Wierdsma