The First Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows: “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 redress of grievances.” The free exercise of religion has been under assault by the liberalism for a number of years and the assault has accelerated significantly in the last two or three years. Attacks on free speech are increasing but of more recent occurrence.
Attacks on free speech increased significantly with efforts to classify certain opinions as hate speech. The problem with prohibiting hate speech is one of determining what is and what is not hate speech. Most often, the efforts at eliminating hate speech are aimed at the “content” of the speech rather than the intolerable mode of expressing the speech (e.g., violence). Here we are not talking about profanity or obscene language that offends the common decency of a civil society. Speech that is bad or hurtful may not be obscene or profane, and slander and libel laws are available where necessary. Also, enforced tolerance through limitations on the content of hate speech may have the opposite effect—that of promoting even more hateful speech or worse. Most importantly, any limit on free speech, however hateful or hurtful, is a slippery slope at whose base is an abyss in which free speech is not only lost but other liberties as well.
As America races toward a monolithic, all-powerful, all-knowing government, free speech is under attack in a variety of ways.
Government approved speech
We recently wrote of the federal government’s first steps at limiting freedom of the press through proposed Federal Communications Commission’s monitoring of newsrooms to determine bias in the provision of critical information needs as determined by the government. [See: “The New Ministry of Truth 2014”]
Government limits on speech through regulation
But government reach goes beyond the newsroom and into cyberspace. Health-wise, Steve Cooksey was a walking time bomb. He was obese, lethargic, asthmatic, chronically ill, and a pre-diabetic. Ignoring the advice of medical personnel and others, he chose to eat a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (beef, pork, chicken, leafy vegetables). He lost seventy-five pounds and no longer needed medications. He began sharing his dietary opinions on his Internet blog and interacting with his readers. When asked he would give his opinion, but the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition got wind of his treachery and following a three-month investigation ordered him stop as he was “counseling” and needed a license to do so. The Institute for Justice defended Cooksey’s First Amendment right of free speech citing the fact that Cooksey’s speech “…involves no sensitive relationships (as in psychological counseling, no uniquely vulnerable listeners (as in potential legal clients forced to make snap decisions), and no plausible presumption that the listeners are unable to exercise independent judgment.” Cooksey’s advice was unpaid, freely sought, involved no professional-client relationships. [Will]
Regulatory oversight is a necessary and proper function of government. However, under the expansive interpretation of the Constitution’s general welfare clause beginning 1936, much of regulatory oversight has become an autocratic function of a nanny-state bureaucracy intruding into the lives of a free people capable of making rational decisions without government interference.
Limiting when and where free speech may occur
Free speech is under attack on many of the nation’s colleges and universities. Robert Van Tuinen, a student at Modesto Junior College, was stopped by campus police from distributing copies of the Constitution on the 226th anniversary of its signing. College officials told Van Tuinen that he could get permission to distribute the Constitution if he pre-registered for time in the “free speech zone” which reportedly was small slab of concrete just big enough for two people. However, once registered, Van Tuinen would have to wait for an available opening. Effectively, administration officials used campus police to enforce an unconstitutional rule, declared the campus to be off limits for free speech except for a small “free speech” area, and limited when and how many could use so-called free speech area, all in violation of the First Amendment. [Haynes]
Criminalizing free speech
Want to go to jail for your views—spoken or written? Lawrence Torcello, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, suggests that some scientists and their financial backers may be both morally and criminally negligent if their views contradict a set of facts that the majority of scientists agree upon. As an example, Torcello believes that, “We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.” [Torcello]
Torcello brushes aside free speech concerns by distinguishing between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs and the funding of a strategically organized campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Torcello states that, “Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept.” But Torcello should read the First Amendment again. There is no limit on free speech because it is strategically organized and well-financed. [Torcello] The Left questions the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions without help from the liberal intellectual elites. The problem for the Left is that the public is getting wise to the liberal, radical environmentalist agenda and other pseudo-scientific pronouncements, and the Left’s only recourse is silence their critics.
Writing seventy years ago in his seminal Road to Serfdom, F. A. Hayek identified the liberal necessity of group-think for the masses to achieve their ends.
The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends…Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants. [emphasis added][Hayek, p. 171.]
For liberals, any public criticism or even expressions of doubt tend to weaken public support for the official doctrine, creed, values, or views of the regime. The acts of government must be sacrosanct and exempt from criticism. Even though the great majority may have surrendered independent thought, the minority’s doubt, discontent, and criticisms must be suppressed or silenced. [Hayek, pp. 175-176.]
The suppression of free speech in America ranks high on the liberal agenda because the end of liberalism is socialism, and the end of socialism is totalitarianism. That is why those pesky three little words of “freedom of speech” in the First Amendment are so troubling to the liberal establishment.
Larry G. Johnson
Sources:
Larry G. Johnson, “The Ministry of Truth 2014,” culturewarrior.net, March 7, 2014. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/on-college-campuses-zoning-out-free-speech (accessed 3-19-14)
Charles C. Haynes, “On college campuses, zoning out free speech,” First Amendment Center, October 14, 2013. www.firstamendmentcenter.org/on-college-campuses-zoning-out-free-speech#tab-section (accessed 3-19-14).
Lawrence Torcello, “Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?” The Conversation, March 13, 2014. https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111##comment_333276 (accessed March 19, 2014).
F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom – Text and Documents, ed. Bruce Caldwell, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1944, 2007), pp. 171, 175-176.
George Will, “An attack on free speech in North Carolina,” Tulsa World, September 27, 2012, A-16.
