“If the freedom of speech be taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”—George Washington
Living in a representative republic means that each person has the right to take a stand for what he or she thinks is right, whether that means marching outside the halls of government, wearing clothing with provocative statements, or simply holding up a sign.
That’s the content and purpose of the First Amendment.
Yet, through a series of carefully-crafted legislative steps and politically-expedient court rulings, government officials have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom and render 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, by 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, president Donald Trump, always keen to exercise his free speech rights to sound off freely on any topic that strikes his fancy, has not been as eager to protect the First Amendment rights of his fellow citizens to speak freely, assemble, protest, and petition one’s government officials for a redress of grievances.
Not that long ago, in fact, Trump suggested that the act of protesting should be illegal.
The president has suggested demonstrators should lose their jobs or be met with violence for speaking out.
Mind you, this is the man who took an oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.
Perhaps someone should have made sure Trump actually had read the U.S. Constitution first.
Most recently, the Donald Trump administration proposed rules that would crack down on protests in front of the White House and on the National Mall.
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, “The rules would restrict gatherings that now take place on a 25-foot-wide sidewalk in front of the White House to just a five-foot sliver, severely limiting crowds. The NPS [National Park Service] threatens to hit political protesters on the National Mall with large security and cleanup fees that historically have been waived for such gatherings, and it wants to make it easier to reject a spontaneous protest of the type that might occur, say, if Trump fires special counsel Robert Mueller.”
Imagine if the hundreds of thousands of participants in the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, which culminated with Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial, had been forced into free speech zones or required to pay for the so-called privilege of protest.
There likely would not have been a 1964 Civil Rights Act.
What is going on here?
Clearly, the government has no interest in hearing what “we the people” have to say.
It’s the message that is feared, especially if that message challenges the status quo.
That’s why so many hurdles are being placed in the paths of those attempting to give voice to sentiments that may be construed as unpopular, offensive, conspiratorial, violent, threatening, or anti-government.
Yet, the right of political free speech is the basis of all liberty.
It’s the citizen’s right to confront the government and demand that it alter its policies. But first, citizens have to be seen and heard, and only under extraordinary circumstances should free speech ever be restricted.
No government that claims to place a value on freedom would adopt such draconian measures to clamp down on lawful First Amendment activities. These tactics of censorship, suppression, and oppression go hand-in-hand with fascism.
Efforts to confine and control dissenters are really efforts to confine and control the effect of their messages, whatever those might be.
That’s the point, isn’t it?
The powers-that-be don’t want us to be seen and heard.
On paper, we are free to speak.
In reality, however, we are 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.
Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has had the effrontery to suggest that the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum, justifying such discrimination 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.
Protest laws are not about protecting the economy or private property or public sidewalks. Rather, they are intended to keep us corralled, muzzle discontent, and discourage anyone from challenging government authority.
The reasons for such censorship vary widely, 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 for expressive activity outside of the halls of government and give voice to their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies, without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment with all its robust protections for free speech, assembly and the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances is little more than window-dressing on a store window: Pretty to look at, but serving little real purpose.
Remember, the First Amendment speaks to the citizenry’s right to express its concerns about government to their government, in a time, place, and manner best suited to ensuring that those concerns are heard.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas advised in his dissent in Colten v. Kentucky, “we need not stay docile and quiet” in the face of authority.
The U.S. Constitution does not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials.
Neither does the U.S. Constitution require obedience, although it does insist on non-violence.
I make clear in my book, “Battlefield America: The War on the American People,” if we just cower before government agents and meekly obey, we may find ourselves following in the footsteps of those nations that eventually fell to tyranny.
—The Rutherford Institute