By John W. Whitehead
May 16, 2016
We are becoming a nation of idiots, encouraged to
spout political drivel and little else.
“The vitality of civil and political
institutions in our society depends on free discussion… It is only through free
debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the
will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely
and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief
distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.”—Justice William O.
Douglas, Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)
Shame on the U.S. Supreme Court for
making a mockery of the First Amendment.
All the justices had to do was right
a 60-year wrong that made it illegal to exercise one’s First Amendment rights
on the Supreme Court plaza.
It shouldn’t have been a big deal.
After all, this is the Court that
has historically championed a robust First Amendment, no matter how
controversial or politically incorrect.
Over the course of its 227-year
history, the Supreme Court has defended the free speech rights of Ku Klux Klan cross-burners, Communist Party organizers, military imposters, Westboro Baptist Church members shouting gay slurs at military
funerals, a teenager who burned a cross on the lawn of an
African-American family, swastika-wearing Nazismarching through the predominantly
Jewish town of Skokie, abortion protesters and sidewalk counselors in front of abortion clinics, flag burners, an anti-war activist arrested for wearing a jacket bearing the words “F#@k the Draft,” high-school students wearing black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War,
a film producer who created and sold
videotapes of dogfights, a movie theater that showed a sexually explicit film, and the Boy Scouts of America to exclude gay members, among
others.
Basically, the Supreme Court has
historically had no problem with radical and reactionary speech, false speech,
hateful speech, racist speech on front lawns, offensive speech at funerals,
anti-Semitic speech in parades, anti-abortion/pro-life speech in front of
abortion clinics, inflammatory speech in a Chicago auditorium,
political speech in a private California shopping mall, or offensive speech in a state courthouse.
So when activist Harold Hodge appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court to defend his right to stand on their government
plaza and silently protest the treatment of African-Americans and Hispanics by
police, it should have been a no-brainer, unanimous ruling in favor of hearing
his case.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is
not quite as keen on the idea of a robust First Amendment as it used to be,
especially when that right is being exercised on the Court’s own front porch.
Not only did the Court refuse to
hear Hodge’s appeal, but in doing so, it also upheld the 60-year-old law banning
expressive activity on the Supreme Court plaza. Mind you, this was the same ban
that a federal district court judge described as “unreasonable, substantially
overbroad…irreconcilable with the First Amendment,” “plainly unconstitutional
on its face” and “repugnant” to the Constitution.
Talk about a double standard—a double standard upheld by a
federal appeals court.
And what was the appeals
court’s rationale for enforcing this ban on expressive activity on the
Supreme Court plaza? “Allowing demonstrations directed at the Court, on the
Court’s own front terrace, would tend to yield the…impression…of a Court
engaged with — and potentially vulnerable to — outside entreaties by the public.”
Translation: The appellate court
that issued that particular ruling in Hodge v. Talkin actually wants us to believe
that the Court is so impressionable that the justices could be swayed by the
sight of a single man standing alone and silent in a 20,000 square-foot space
wearing a small sign on a day when the court was not in session.
What a load of tripe.
Of course the Supreme Court is not
going to be swayed by you or me or Harold Hodge.
This ban on free speech in the
Supreme Court plaza, enacted by Congress in 1949, stems from a desire to
insulate government officials from those exercising their First Amendment
rights, an altogether elitist mindset that views the government “elite” as
different, set apart somehow, from the people they have been appointed to serve
and represent.
No wonder interactions with
politicians have become increasingly manufactured and distant in recent
decades. The powers-that-be want us kept at a distance. Press conferences and
televised speeches now largely take the place of face-to-face interaction with
constituents. Elected officials keep voters at arms-length through the use of
electronic meetings and ticketed events. And there has been an increased use of
so-called “free speech zones,” designated areas for expressive activity used to
corral and block protestors at political events from interacting with public
officials. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have used “free speech
zones” at various conventions to mute any and all criticism of their policies
and likely will do so again this year.
We’re nearing the end of the road
for free speech and freedom in general, folks.
With every passing day, we’re being
moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by
government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all
packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national
security, tolerance and so-called “government speech.”
Were Tinker to make
its way through the courts today, it would have to overcome the many hurdles
being placed in the path of those attempting to voice sentiments that may be
construed as unpopular, offensive, conspiratorial, violent, threatening or
anti-government.
Indeed, the Supreme Court now has
the effrontery to suggest that the government can discriminate freely against
First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum, justifying
such censorship as “government speech.”
If it were just the courts
suppressing free speech, that would be one thing to worry about, but First
Amendment activities are being pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and
generally gagged all across the country. The reasons for such censorship vary
widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national
security and hate crimes but the end result remains the same: the complete
eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free
government.”
If Americans are not able to peacefully
assemble outside of the halls of government for expressive activity, the First
Amendment has lost all meaning.
If we cannot stand silently outside
of the Supreme Court or the Capitol or the White House, our ability to hold the
government accountable for its actions is threatened, and so are the rights and
liberties which we cherish as Americans.
Living in a so-called representative
republic means that each person has the right to stand outside the halls of
government and express his or her opinion on matters of state without fear of
arrest.
That’s what the First Amendment is
all about.
It gives every American the right to
“petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It ensures, as Adam
Newton and Ronald K.L. Collins report for the Five Freedoms Project, “that our
leaders hear, even if they don’t listen to, the electorate. Though public
officials may be indifferent, contrary, or silent participants in democratic
discourse, at least the First Amendment commands their audience.”
Unfortunately, through a series of
carefully crafted legislative steps, government officials—both elected and
appointed—have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it
with little more meaning than the right to file a lawsuit against government
officials.
In the process, government officials
have succeeded in insulating themselves from their constituents, making it
increasingly difficult for average Americans to make themselves seen or heard
by those who most need to hear what “we the people” have to say.
Indeed, while lobbyists mill in and
out of the homes and offices of Congressmen, the American people are kept at a
distance through free speech zones, electronic town hall meetings, and security
barriers. And those who dare to breach the gap—even through silent forms of
protest—are arrested for making their voices heard.
Clearly, the government has no
interest in hearing what “we the people” have to say.
We are now only as free to speak as
a government official may allow.
Free speech zones, bubble zones,
trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime
laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and
prosecutors have conspired to corrode our core freedoms.
As a result, we are no longer a
nation of constitutional purists for whom the Bill of Rights serves as the
ultimate authority. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the
American People,
we have litigated and legislated our way into a new governmental framework
where the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the
inalienable rights of the citizenry.
Without the First Amendment, we are
utterly helpless.
It’s not just about the right to
speak freely, or pray freely, or assemble freely, or petition the government
for a redress of grievances, or have a free press. The unspoken freedom
enshrined in the First Amendment is the right to think freely and openly debate
issues without being muzzled or treated like a criminal.
In the end, censorship and political
correctness not only produce people that cannot speak for themselves but also
people who cannot think for themselves. And a citizenry that can’t think for
itself is a citizenry that will neither rebel against the government’s dictates
nor revolt against the government’s tyranny.
The architects, engineers and
lever-pullers who run the American police state want us to remain deaf, dumb
and silent. They want our children raised on a vapid diet of utter nonsense,
where common sense is in short supply and the only viewpoint that matters is
the government’s.
We are becoming a nation of idiots,
encouraged to spout political drivel and little else.
If George Orwell envisioned the
future as a boot stamping on a human face, a fair representation of our present
day might well be a muzzle on that same human face.
WC: 1876
