Posted by
Katherine Harms on Thursday, June 12, 2008 5:16:19 PM
In a New York Times article, “Unlike Others, US Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech,”
[1] Adam Liptak hints that it might be time for the US to re-evaluate our first amendment rights. He discusses a case in Canada in which Muslims took issue with opinions of Islam expressed in a magazine. This case arose after the magazine published a “mocking and biting” article which argued “that the rise of Islam threatened Western values.” Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress took the matter to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal where their complaint that it violated provincial laws against hate speech is currently being reviewed.
It might be a good time to look at the First Amendment to the Constitution again. What does it say? Why is it there? What ever made us think we needed this amendment anyway?
The First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
When the Constitution was written in 1787, the delegates to the convention believed that the concept of the document included the right of citizens to engage in debate over issues. Such debate had enabled and empowered the Revolution and it continued to be important to citizens of all the states in the new country. However, as the proposed Constitution circulated among the states for ratification, many states expressed deep apprehension over the absence of specific protection for speech. There was such a ground swell of concern over this issue and several others that ratification of the Constitution was only achieved by virtue of an agreement that the first Congress would quickly provide protection for speech as part of a group of amendments popularly referred to as the Bill of Rights. Wise leaders rightly discerned that rights not specifically protected might well disappear in the muddle of history. The First Amendment provided that Congress could not pass any law abridging freedom of speech.
Currently, one of the most visible expressions of our right to free speech is talk radio. Around the country, AM radio stations offer many opportunities for people to talk about all sorts of things. The writers of the Constitution would be proud if they could see this phenomenon in action. Benjamin Franklin fervently advocated for mail service in this nation in order to achieve precisely what talk radio does so well. Franklin wanted the citizens to be able to talk with each other about their concerns and to communicate with the various officials and representatives they had elected to their government. He would have been ecstatic if he even imagined that one day private citizens would have the opportunity to speak to huge audiences using the power of talk radio.
I hear that there are people in Congress who don’t like talk radio. They think that people might have too much freedom of speech unless someone “reins in” talk radio. We must not let Congress institute restrictions on our freedom of speech by making rules for talk radio. As it exists today, talk radio owes nothing to anybody. No political force runs it, no political force limits it. We, the people, talk about everything, and sometimes we even talk about Congress. We need that freedom, and it is our Constitutional right. We, the people, must tell Congress to forget writing any laws that restrict our right to free speech. Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, James Madison, and George Washington are watching. We must stand strong and tell Congress our message: Don’t even think of trying to restrict our freedom of speech.