Celebrating the 4th of July by speaking freely

Celebrating the 4^th of July by speaking freely

One of the most profound outcomes of the 1776  Declaration of Independence was the eventual protection of freedom of speech institutionalized in the first amendment to the 1789 Constitution.  Speaking out against the King was considered treason punished by prison or  hanging.  In spite of that, our founding fathers  took the risk, even signing their “John Hancock’s”  and later writers of the Constitution made sure Congress shall make no laws …abridging freedom of speech”.

 Sometimes what is protected from whom is misunderstood.  My husband, a refugee from Communism, who often speaks his mind, complained that he was not free to say everything he thought because someone might take offense. I even heard a politician on TV be angry at his ability to do likewise. “Whatever happened to freedom of speech?”, he groused.

 Do not confuse being politically correct with your first amendment rights granted by the Constitution. The operative words are "Congress shall pass no  laws" that will abridge your right to speak".  It protects your rights to be even politically incorrect.  That does not mean that your friends, relatives, co-workers, or potential political supporters have to like what you say, or cannot argue against you, or cannot  vote against  you and for the other guy  if you are a candidate. It just means you will not be thrown into a dungeon or hanged if you  speak out against the government or express your opinions.

That  concept of freedom to speak  has been both  limited and expanded since 1789  and the arbiter is the US Supreme Court.  Campaign contributions are considered free speech even if  made  by a corporation,  and now the Supreme Court has agreed  to rule on whether threats made on Facebook to kill a spouse is protected by the constitution. Usually slander against an individual  or a celebrity by a newspaper or some individual has not been Constitutionally protected (though even situation  may yet be expanded to limit  slanderous speech by  individuals ) , but the wrong can be  addressed  by a law suit in civil court. Even  anti abortion demonstrators  standing on sidewalks no longer are held back by a buffer zone per a Supreme Court ruling this June.

 The Supreme Court has been asked time and time again where    limits should be set  to deny the right in some circumstances..  After all, some speech may hurt others, and the Supreme Court has most famously drawn the line with a 1919 decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … … in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger”.

 With Twitter and  Facebook,  new  internet tools are being  used  to  slander, threaten, and cyberbully. This  will keep the Supreme Court for years to draw  lines of whether  such  kinds of speech cross some constitutionally protected  line.

A version of this appeared in the Sky Hi Daily News July 4, 2014 (www.skyhidailynews.com)

Links to more about it, go to

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/16/supreme-court-facebook-threats-free-speech/10326233/

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/free-speech.aspx
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rules-obamacare-challenge-case-143206534.html ruled by the Court today did not address the first amendment rights, though they were raised.  This case is also known as the "Holly Lobby" case regarding the rights of corporations to deny providing birth control under Obamacare provisions.  The ruling was very specifically and narrowly applied to closely held corporations claiming freedom or religion. However, the downside was laid out in a blistering dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and deserves reading to understand the impact of the decision. The summary of her comments are at:    http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision