Liberty: A two-way street

  • Share on Tumblr

It occurred to me today that we treat liberty pretty much the same way we do money. We all want to get rich, but we sure as heck don’t want the other guy rolling in the bucks. In fact, we resent our rich neighbors and will often go out of our way to stymie their fortune seeking if possible.

Here in America, we all talk a lot about freedom and liberty. But when somebody starts exercising theirs in a manner that rubs us the wrong way, Katie bar the door – that stuff is dangerous and we must put a stop to it!

Recently, a church scraped together some cash and rented a billboard along a major road in Lexington, Ky. It expressed their opinion on homosexuality along with their views on abortion.

Yup. It was pretty offensive.

So, a local “fairness” group used tax records to track down the owner of the billboard. Turns out it was CSX Railroad, using CBS Advertising to lease out the advertising space. Well, with the advocacy group putting a little pressure on CSX, the company yanked the billboard.

Having successfully protected Lexington commuters’ sensitive eyes from the offending words, a spokesperson for the “fairness” organization made this logically incoherent statement.

“We aren’t opposed to free speech unless it’s hate speech.”

Huh?

Look, you support freedom of speech or you don’t. By definition, working to scrub messages you find offensive out of existence falls into the “don’t” category.

Seriously, I’m still trying to wrap my head around exactly what’s “fair” about an organization promoting “fairness” telling some poor misguided rubes, “Sorry, you can’t express your opinion. It hurts my feelings.”

Good grief.

Freedom of speech only works when we protect the most vile, offensive and unpopular messages. Heck, those expressions NEED protecting. We really don’t need a right to speak freely in order to talk about butterflies, kittens and chocolate cake!

Philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote extensively about the importance of protecting all speech. He points out a person attempting to erase an idea takes upon himself the right to judge truth for all humanity.

They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.

Furthermore, suppressing certain ideas diminishes the search for truth.

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Liberty runs along a two-way street. You must give it to get it. Tolerance means tolerance even of the intolerant.

About Mike Maharrey

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?
5 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
DarylLloydDavis
DarylLloydDavis

The Supreme Court has ruled that even free speech has its limits: One may not unnecessarily incite others into a panic--and this seems reasonable. But one other prohibitive distinction ought to be made: Though adults indeed ought not be protected from any reality, all sorts of protections ought to be in place in order to shield children from realities they need not yet confront.

 

In the above case of a public billboard, it would make a good deal of difference what the message or the image might be; because children will see it as surely as adults will.

 

This is not a society for grown ups alone--where we argue among ourselves like little children. Would it be so objectionable if, within a given state, say Texas, the voters decided that speech related to sex and sexuality is inappropriate for billboards and other public displays?

 

Were the motivation a religious imposition, one might answer that, yes, it would be insupportable. But if the measure were intended to compel adults to argue like adults, confining their disagreements to purely adult venues, it would be a reasonable restriction upon all citizens--and a sound protection for our children.

 

http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/of-morality/ 

Mike Maharrey
Mike Maharrey

 @DarylLloydDavis You've missed the point. The billboard only served as a springboard for the deeper point of the article. I never said the group didn't have every right to apply pressure to get the billboard removed. And I wasn't even attempting to address the nuances of First Amendment law.  My objection is to the underlying philosophy expressed by the spokesperson for the group - “We aren’t opposed to free speech unless it’s hate speech.” He clearly believes he has a "right" to determine what expression is and is not permissible. The issue wasn't the location of the bill board, it was the message expressed.

 

DarylLloydDavis
DarylLloydDavis

 @MikeMaharrey-TenthAmendment You wrote: Freedom of speech only works when we protect the most vile, offensive and unpopular messages.

 

And I ticked off several scenarios in which freedom of speech could work just fine within imposed limitations. I appreciate the offensiveness inherent in the censorship of expressed opinion. But the Tenth itself affords states a certain latitude to design divergent legal environments in accordance with the regional values and interests of their respective voters.

 

I designed a very localized system of direct democracy as a sort of extension of this principle. Allow the smallest possible political unit the widest possible latitude for both expression and experimentation--all while preserving basic constitutional rights and, of course, the freedom to leave and live elsewhere.

 

Thus, a tolerance, even for the intolerant, becomes possible  The heart of the Tenth is a preservation of the right to be different from the rest of the nation--to chart one's own cultural and legal course. Otherwise, it means nothing: a symbolic stipulation ahead of a complete assimilation.

 

And let us not forget that the good people of CSX might themselves have acted like grown ups and refused to bow to the pressure applied. We now live in a society in which true adults are almost extinct.

 

http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/in-brief/

MatthewStephenRogers
MatthewStephenRogers

I actually agree with that as a lefty.  Where I draw the line is when Christian haters want to use the state to limit gay peoples freedom of association as in anti gay marriage laws.  Then it crosses the line from speech to action.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Liberty: A two-way street – Tenth Amendment Center Blog [...]