OPINIONS I
SPEECH
Freedom of speech has been one of the hallmarks of American Democracy from its inception. What does it mean? Does it mean whoever shouts the loudest is the only one to be listened to? Does it mean those who manage to silence their enemies are the only ones who have a right to speech? Does it mean we should be willing to engage in endless verbal jousts, blindly holding to one side of a question or another, assuming the truth will somehow win out?
The idea of truth emerging from a contest goes way back. In fact the word “trial” is associated with ancient ordeals suspects had to endure, and if they miraculously survived, they were declared innocent.
But truth is independent of customs and practices. Customs and practices are useful only to the extent that they reflect a genuine love of and quest for truth. Dishonest practices, lying and even casualness about facts and information make societies less vital. The result is ignorance and we can look at any number of failed or failing civilizations to see the consequences.
Of course we’re familiar with Christ’s axiom: “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32)
Why did the Founders go out of their way to protect freedom of speech? One obvious answer is that people should be able to say something that might be offensive to a ruler without fear of governmental retaliation or retribution. That certainly is something the less-powerful of all societies can appreciate and support. But there’s more. There’s the question of truth itself.
More fundamentally for me, Freedom of Speech allows and encourages the acquisition and dissemination of truth, and this comes to us from our Bible tradition. It was the advent of the printing press, and more particularly the ability to print multiple copies of the Bible that was so liberating for Europeans. It was empowering to have access to the same Bible the clergy had controlled for centuries both in terms of limiting copies and restricting interpretation.
In light of this background and tradition, how is speech considered to be free today? It seems that it often has more to do with the exercise of power or force, than any love for the truth. Do we want to know the truth, or do we just want powerful communications?
Following the Roman tradition of “acclamatio,” speech (which includes writing and other forms of communication) has actually become more and more inhibited when it comes to the discovery and dissemination of reliable and useful information. This seems odd in light of the “liberating” decisions the courts have made since the 60’s relative to speech. Expression in the forms of bra burning, flag burning, hate America and traditional values speech, pornography, etc. have all been found permissible under the First Amendment. Logically this should have lead to anybody saying anything or expressing anything without inhibition. However the spirit of liberality has moved toward the libertine, and what used to be considered wise and temperate and therefore, spoken of and praised openly, is now considered dangerously old-fashioned, overly restrictive, and therefore either not acceptable or not allowed.
Self-assured Libertines are so convinced that freedom means doing and saying anything they please, and that any restraint on their self-indulgences violates their rights, that they boldly shout down or smear advocates of any alternate view, written or spoken. Thus in the name of freedom, freedom gets curtailed!
If just and reasonable people are not willing to speak, they inevitably will be eclipsed by those who are. However, if just and reasonable people are willing to speak and they are being intimidated and silenced by political elites, biased media, or by noisy, rude, disruptive and even violent elements in our streets and public forums, then we are not witnessing free expression, we are witnessing repression of expression; and a desire to know the truth has nothing to do with it.
As a nation, and even a Western Civilization, we are faced with many complex problems and challenges. We need to be able to discuss issues openly and honestly without fear of punishment, reprisal or even social pressure. Policies and practices may be allowed or prohibited by a clear majority, but complete liberty should be accorded expression and those who express. The most effective way of controlling offensive, ugly and untrue expression is by not patronizing it. We don’t support it with our time, our money, or any other means. That’s how to stop it without curtailing freedom. Of course this implies a public that’s knowledgeable, thoughtful and grounded in sound moral principles.
We aren’t going to be able to solve anything if we can’t get at the truth. This not only affects our public meetings, but also our courts. People should be able to testify in court with no fear whatsoever about reprisals from contesting parties. Any form of force used to influence or coerce court witnesses, processes or decisions should be met with legitimate counterforce and firmly put down. “Impartiality” implies a devotion to truth without regard to the status of individuals.
Journalism is another major area of concern. News outlets should be able to publish any opinion and report anything that isn’t libelous or slanderous. A person should be able to submit an opinion to a newspaper, or express it over the air, and the only negative effect should be that of opposing opinions. No death threats, no harassing phone calls, no fearsome demonstrations, no character assassinations, no ruined careers or any other form of coercion. Why? Because we are supposedly just looking for the truth and therefore are open to all sincere opinions without going to war over them.
For big media, I fear, devotion to truth has taken a backseat to many other considerations, significantly money and power. Advertising dollars have always tempted Journalists. Both print and electronic news organizations are businesses after all, and subscription dollars don’t begin to cover their costs. It’s advertising dollars that make Journalists go soft on stories about their advertisers, or even positions on issues their advertisers might not appreciate.
Secondly, powerful people, particularly in government are affecting media objectivity more and more. In light of the First Amendment, our government officials should be the last people on earth to try and censure media expression. Government leaders and politicians certainly should be able to express their views, and the media certainly should report what they say accurately, but for our government to threaten media outlets and personalities with prosecutions (including harassments such as unwarranted IRS audits) or gagging for what has been expressed is completely inconsistent with the Constitution.
On the other hand, Journalists have lusted for power beyond that which is reasonably given the Press. Instead of just being the “watch dog,” some media people are bent on being “big dogs.” They not only want to report the news, they want to be the news. They not only want to report public policy, they want to make public policy; thus journalistic objectivity gets compromised by political ambition and personal bias.
This has become no less a problem in Academia. Too many college professors today, especially in the “soft sciences” use their classrooms as political forums rather than places devoted to facts and the truths such facts reveal. The same could be said of churches that focus more on popular influence or their financial “bottom line” than that of right and wrong. And everybody could be more humble about what and how much we really know!
So what began as my brief commentary on freedom of speech really touches on the broader issue of decadence in society. A society becomes decadent that no longer cares about the truth. Such a society becomes dishonest because too many of its members have become dishonest.
Dishonesty makes life more complicated. Take, for example, the game of telling someone to arrive five minutes before they really need to for an appointment, and then he/she starts coming ten minutes later, so you tell him/her to come 15 minutes earlier. The game continues until both parties are so far from reality they lose track of the original time, or even the reason for the appointment.
There are dozens of other and more serious examples. Read, for example, Lying, Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, by Sissela Bok (New York; Vintage Books/Random House;1979), or Lynne V. Cheney’s book, Telling The Truth (New York; Simon & Schuster; 1995).
We have to be in touch with reality in order to deal effectively with it. This, of course, bates the question: “what is reality,” reminding us of the question Pilot put to Christ: “What is truth?” (John 18:38)
In the following essays I hope to shed true light on a variety of topics, striving to support my opinions with common sense arguments and useful citations. I ask you, my readers, to help fill in the many thin spots. But even with our best efforts, I believe ultimate truth is beyond the capacity of man left to himself. I ask you to join me in this assumption as I anchor many of my ideas in the scriptures.
Why scriptures? With the explosion of knowledge and information today, surely we are “outgrowing” the wisdom of the ages, distilled in what we call scripture, right? Wrong. The explosion of knowledge and information has brought many advantages and benefits, but has also brought a blurring of the lines defining good and evil. More and more we travel in a bewildering fog of information with its conflicting and contradicting ideas and pronouncements. In my opinion, there aren’t enough people on the planet with enough combined time and brainpower to sort through it all and come up with reliable answers.
The societal problems we face are not new, but they are on a scale never before seen. They don’t allow us the luxury of exploring every intellectual and fanciful labyrinth before world events coalesce, and leave us living with the results. I feel we are faced with an urgent dilemma. When it comes to truth we must hold to the principles found in the Bible and other supporting works, or we go it alone. Either way, the consequences are just around the corner.
–Doug Taylor
