The Reality of Free Speech

For many people, the thumbnail sketch of the protections afforded free speech under the first amendment has been based upon a quote attributed to Voltaire:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Succinct and to the point to be sure, but a statement that must be continually evaluated and reassessed lest its fundamental underlying precepts fall into a state of atrophic  decay from lack of proper and regular use.

The recent Supreme Court decision* allowing a small group of American citizens to assemble and loudly protest using profane and horrific language at funerals for fallen soldiers is just such an instance that demands the aforementioned reappraisal of the principles upon which free speech is accorded the citizenry.

First, the decision must be made of whether shouting obscenities at a funeral, in any situation, is morally acceptable and should such outrageous conduct be sanctioned by the government, said sanctioning coming by it permissibility.

Obviously, actions such as these strike a deep emotional chord and are felt to be reprehensible and an affront to society at large. There are few, save the particular litigants to the legal action, who believe that screeching bile and ignorance is, on any societal level, acceptable. Such actions are repulsive to Americans, doubly so when taken in the context of a funeral for an American soldier, one who laid down their life in the pursuit of freedom.

This issue, however, is one that must be absent emotional sentiment. Any issue presented and taken up by the court must be so devoid. How this issue makes one ‘feel’ cannot and must not be taken into account. We are truly a nation of laws, and the Constitution specifically is absent any manner of sentimentality. Adding any modicum of emotion serves only to obscure the underlying facts.

There are indeed limits to free speech – the popular understanding that free speech does not grant permission or protection to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater for instance. Simply speaking, or shouting ones lack of intelligence is not a crime. The definition of ‘hate speech’ must be relegated to one person’s internal and  individual belief that they ‘hate’ what someone else is saying. It is critical to remember that one persons’ individual belief system cannot become a universal standard, no matter what its allegiance. Once any part of free speech is impinged upon by using ‘feeling’ to equate its permissibility, the quick downward slope to regulating all speech is unavoidable.

And so, no matter how disgusting one may believe it is to shout obscenities at a soldier’s funeral, it is more critical to remember the fundamental freedoms they willingly gave their lives to defend.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

If a country is to remain free, this cannot be merely a catchphrase. It must remain an integral part of the national foundation and we must all remain vigilant in its defense.

*SNYDER v. PHELPS ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09–751. Argued October 6, 2010—Decided March 2, 2011