The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive, rebellious and despicable speech. No other kinds of speech need that protection.

I found it sad that so many, otherwise sensible people, people who cherished their own right to say and write what they want, were giddy to the point of gleeful over the recent foibles of “loose cannons,” like baseball pitcher John Rocker, rapper Eminem and talk show host Bob Grant.

Sadder still, was the fact that so many members of the media, who make their livings, thanks in part, to the protections provided by the First Amendment, find attacks on offensive or “hate” speech, as imprudent and ignorant as it might be, justified.

Two things that too many of us forget is that (1) Bigotry is not a criminal offense. If it were, not only would the likes of Grant, Rocker, Khalid Mohammed, the Aryan Nation and the Black Israelites be imprisoned, but so could anyone else who had the temerity to “offend” anyone.

Thank God for the First Amendment, which brings me to (2) the idea behind the First Amendment wasn’t merely protection for the Press, nor “acceptable” forms of speech – it was designed specifically to protect revolutionary, unpopular and hateful speech. Believe it, the British found almost everything the likes of Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Franklin said, to be very “hateful,” extremely inflammatory and downright seditious.

Another consideration that many of us forget is that Free Speech Rights aren’t given to us by government (at least not according those who wrote the Constitution), they are “Natural or Inalienable Rights” that belong to us merely by virtue of us being human.

The fact that other governments don’t accept this only proves what Thomas Paine – the resident anti-authoritarian and author of "Common Sense" – said about them. Paine called Europe’s monarchist system “cowardly,” “despotic” and “rotten to its core.”

The arguments in favor of restricting bigoted speech revolve around the idea that “bigotry tears at the very fabric of a multi-ethnic society.”

That sounds very nice, but in actuality, it’s a vile and very poor excuse for limiting personal liberty in the name of “domestic tranquility.” Free speech is more important than domestic tranquility because liberty is more vital than peace.

Slaves held at gunpoint are very tranquil indeed, but if we consider all humans worthy of the dignity of freedom, we cannot restrict their rights, we cannot enslave them without endorsing universal slavery for us all.

Criminalizing thoughts or opinions only serves to make martyrs of those who are punished for espousing them. A martyred cause, even an irresponsible one, always draws more support than the one that persecutes it.

So why surrender the moral high ground to views that appeal only to the thinnest margins of society?

Personally, I feel the same way about bigotry as I do about drugs. If person-A uses or sells drugs, what do I care? It is his/her problem to deal with. Now if person-A commits a crime (assault, robbery, etc), either under the influence, or in order to support that drug habit, he/she should be punished for the crime against person or property, not the drug “offense.”

The same with bigotry, if person-A dislikes me for any reason, or even no reason at all, I have no problem with that. That is their right. But if person-A assaults my person or property, I have the rights to both self-defense and to see him prosecuted for his crimes, but not his bigotry.

Who cares why he assaulted me?

Bigotry is usually based on either fear or envy. Fear of others who are unlike us.

The most common reason people give for not liking other groups is "Because they hate us."

Fear and envy, that "they" have, or are getting some advantage, that the rest of us don't have. No doubt, generalizations usually lead to misconceptions, but even misconceptions seem true to the beholder, otherwise they wouldn't cling to them.

Punishing beliefs or opinions, even those based on misconceptions does nothing to dispel these misconceptions, in fact, sanctions or censor only reinforces the fear and envy of perceived "special privilege."

A common argument in favor of restricting expression is that “The First Amendment doesn’t protect reckless or irresponsible speech,” as in “yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.” This is a relatively new wrinkle (Oliver Wendell Holmes) and a dangerous one. The Founders didn’t qualify speech and neither can we without opening that qualification to interpretation.

If “inciting a riot,” is reckless, why isn’t merely criticizing the government? Or criticizing any of the elected officials who serve in government? The parameters of “recklessness” are entirely subjective.

The fact of the matter is that the authors of the Constitution didn’t recognize the state’s right to censor speech at all. Certainly not speech that “incited riot.” Thomas Jefferson wrote about the need for “a revolution every twenty years.” All of Thomas Paine’s collected writings could be termed “incitement to riot,” without straining the imagination one wit.

The question of reckless speech comes down to one of personal responsibility. Who is responsible for my actions? Is it I, or the man who fuels my passions with some well-chosen words?

Anyone who respects the ideal of liberty knows that it is I. That’s all that needs to be said about that.

Well, how about libel laws and slander?

Slander is illegal because it is theft, not because it’s irresponsible speech. Slander results in the loss of reputation or one’s good name. Slander is, in effect, an “illicit taking.” In every jurisdiction, the slanderer is punished for his theft, not for his reckless speech.

How about the argument that goes, “This is not government censoring Grant and Rocker, but their private employers?

Maybe government has to respect their rights to free speech, but WABC Radio and the Atlanta Braves don’t.”

That’s a good point. Should a private concern be forced to acknowledge and accept our right to free speech?

Must a TV or radio station, for instance, abide reprehensible speech by its on-air employees?

It does sound absurd. Doesn’t it?

Still, who decides what views are to be sanctioned or censored?

What if a company decides to fire communists, or people who are pro-gay rights, or in favor of inter-racial marriage? These are examples of speech/opinions too.

If we’d be troubled by the censoring of any of the above views, we should be equally vexed by the censoring of religious fanatics and bigots as well. Anything less, is an admission of bigotry on our own parts.

Which brings me to my final point; Why are some bigotries worse than others?

Why is it OK for some of the more extreme homosexual activists to be vehemently anti-Catholic, without criticism, while such a big deal is made of anti-Catholicism, when Bob Jones University is accused of it?

Why are incredibly bigoted statements made by Leftists, like retired Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Long, OK? Statements like calling a group of African Bishops, who opposed his agenda within the Anglican Church, “a pack of jumped up primitives, one step removed from witch doctors.”

Why the double standard?

Are John Long’s comments OK and John Rocker’s not OK?

If so, why? Are John Long’s true and John Rocker’s false?

If veracity is not the issue, than what is the justification for the double standard?

There is no justification.

When dealing with ideas, the only moral stance is “Let them all in.” Khalid Mohammed and Tom Metzger have as much right to voice their ideas as do people like the late Mother Theresa, or Eli Weissel.

The fact that some ideas sound better to a larger number of people, is no proof of veracity. In fact, the better an idea sounds to an overwhelming majority of people, the more we should doubt it.

P.T. Barnum was right about “a sucker born every minute,” and so was Will Rogers, “You’ll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”

Do the ideas of Noam Chomsky and Jimmy Carter sound better to you than those of Charles Murray and Pat Buchanan? That proves nothing.

In the realm of ideas, nothing is innately right or wrong – all is grist for the mill. In fact unpopular and disagreeable ideas are often the most vital. They’re the only ones that make people think.

 

(c) 2000 J M Kearney