In the December 2005 newsletter Eric Chevrevuil discussed the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech, as a freedom the U.S. Constitution was created to guarantee. The discussion indicates Eric, along with many Americans, doesn’t get it. The Constitution was created to place limits on government, not the citizenry. Take the 1st Amendment; “Congress shall make no law; or abridging the freedom of speech.” No confusion there. No allusion to kinds of speech, just speech. Yet, those like Eric, minority activist groups, and activist judges, revel in exactly that, lofty discussion about definitions, applications and interpretations of free speech.
Oliver Wendell Holms’ claim in 1919 that any speech is not free speech is in of itself contrary to the 1st Amendment. Of course, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is an obvious rare example of unprotected speech due to the inherent danger caused by the immediate result of stampede. However, there are no inherent dangers in offensive speech and the questions posed by Eric make for nice debate but is irrelevant. The framers of the Constitution indulged in these debates and carefully chose the words in the Constitution to avoid confusion and multiple interpretations. What Eric and like minds seem not to realize is that offensive and unpopular speech is exactly what was being protected, in spite of the so called “French” saying, one’s freedom stops when it infringes on another’s. [Read more…]