First and Foremost.
I'm going to use my blog to discuss something that actually matters to me today, instead of just writing mediocre poetry and whining about my life.
For context: I want to address the 'White Nationalism' Rally in the Commonwealth of Virginia, etc...
I support everyone's civil rights, especially the rights of the criminally accused, because due process is so critically important to a functional and fair justice system. I support the rights of men and women who have hate in their hearts just as much as I support the rights of people with whom I can align myself.
Battery, Murder, and Terrorism are crimes and they exist in a category that is and should be totally separate from protected speech and protest. I don't mean in anyway to express anything but unequivocal condemnation for equation of the two by individuals acting under the guise of speaking or expressing themselves freely.
It gravely disappoints me that there are (so many) people who at the very least foster and at most offer unflagging support of racism, discrimination, and other divisive ideologies. I still feel however, that my disgust does not warrant silencing them.
I want to talk about a Supreme Court case that provides valuable insight to the evaluation of the events that have been transpiring. This case is relevant insomuch as there is congruity in the legal analyses of free expression.
TEXAS v. JOHNSON (1989)
For those of you who aren't familiar with the case: it deals with the issue of whether or not burning the American flag constitutes protected expressive conduct under the First Amendment. In a 5-4 decision the Rehnquist Court decided that flag burning is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. Furthermore, the Court opined that no matter how odious the speech/expression, the spirit of the First Amendment would best be served if the government imposed as few restrictions on free speech and expression as possible.
"The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech. The Court also held that state officials did not have the authority to designate symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages, noting that "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."*
What I've been reading online and hearing from friends is that people should not be allowed to protest or express themselves because what they believe/say hurts feelings and offends people. I know that the implications of allowing hate speech to be spewed freely in our streets are much larger than hurt feelings. I know that emboldening racists and antagonists of many varieties will result from the promulgation of hateful ideas in a public forum. I believe that as a country we will suffer because of what is happening in Charlottesville, Virginia.
That being said, I still feel wholeheartedly that people, even those who I find despicable, should be afforded the opportunity to exercise their freedoms. In the same way, I believe that people who disagree with their rhetoric ought to exercise their right to counter-protest. Get outside your comfort zone, get outside your home, and say something instead of trying to put the proverbial pillow over the collective face of a personage who very well may deserve it.
When speech is limited, when rights are restricted, we all lose. As a civil libertarian, I am frustrated with the state of things, and that may just be the understatement of the century. At the same time though, I feel it's my obligation as a strong-believer in the spirit of the US Constitution, to promote the understanding that our responsibility is not to silence others but to use our own voices to combat hateful and damaging rhetoric.
One more time, I want to explain that people responsible for violent crimes or harassment are not the people I am talking about. Committing crimes and inciting violence does not constitute protected speech and free expression.
A quintessential quality of a free society is the ability to express oneself without fear of reprisal and I think it's fundamental to progress to respect and protect freedom of speech not only when it is convenient, comfortable, and agreeable.
Okay, that's all.
*https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-155.
For context: I want to address the 'White Nationalism' Rally in the Commonwealth of Virginia, etc...
I support everyone's civil rights, especially the rights of the criminally accused, because due process is so critically important to a functional and fair justice system. I support the rights of men and women who have hate in their hearts just as much as I support the rights of people with whom I can align myself.
Battery, Murder, and Terrorism are crimes and they exist in a category that is and should be totally separate from protected speech and protest. I don't mean in anyway to express anything but unequivocal condemnation for equation of the two by individuals acting under the guise of speaking or expressing themselves freely.
It gravely disappoints me that there are (so many) people who at the very least foster and at most offer unflagging support of racism, discrimination, and other divisive ideologies. I still feel however, that my disgust does not warrant silencing them.
I want to talk about a Supreme Court case that provides valuable insight to the evaluation of the events that have been transpiring. This case is relevant insomuch as there is congruity in the legal analyses of free expression.
TEXAS v. JOHNSON (1989)
For those of you who aren't familiar with the case: it deals with the issue of whether or not burning the American flag constitutes protected expressive conduct under the First Amendment. In a 5-4 decision the Rehnquist Court decided that flag burning is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. Furthermore, the Court opined that no matter how odious the speech/expression, the spirit of the First Amendment would best be served if the government imposed as few restrictions on free speech and expression as possible.
"The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech. The Court also held that state officials did not have the authority to designate symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages, noting that "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."*
What I've been reading online and hearing from friends is that people should not be allowed to protest or express themselves because what they believe/say hurts feelings and offends people. I know that the implications of allowing hate speech to be spewed freely in our streets are much larger than hurt feelings. I know that emboldening racists and antagonists of many varieties will result from the promulgation of hateful ideas in a public forum. I believe that as a country we will suffer because of what is happening in Charlottesville, Virginia.
That being said, I still feel wholeheartedly that people, even those who I find despicable, should be afforded the opportunity to exercise their freedoms. In the same way, I believe that people who disagree with their rhetoric ought to exercise their right to counter-protest. Get outside your comfort zone, get outside your home, and say something instead of trying to put the proverbial pillow over the collective face of a personage who very well may deserve it.
When speech is limited, when rights are restricted, we all lose. As a civil libertarian, I am frustrated with the state of things, and that may just be the understatement of the century. At the same time though, I feel it's my obligation as a strong-believer in the spirit of the US Constitution, to promote the understanding that our responsibility is not to silence others but to use our own voices to combat hateful and damaging rhetoric.
One more time, I want to explain that people responsible for violent crimes or harassment are not the people I am talking about. Committing crimes and inciting violence does not constitute protected speech and free expression.
A quintessential quality of a free society is the ability to express oneself without fear of reprisal and I think it's fundamental to progress to respect and protect freedom of speech not only when it is convenient, comfortable, and agreeable.
Okay, that's all.
*https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-155.
Comments
Post a Comment