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 These laws were unpopular from the outset, and were gradually repealed after the party's defeat in the election of 1800.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