On Freedom of Expression

Remove all ads!

Beware: You are about to enter a highly charged political zone. . .enter at your own risk.

Quick! Who is Matthew Lyon?


This topic dovetails nicely with a similar thread started by Tal on freedom of the press and a disturbing survey which found that many high school students appeared to never have heard of the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This topic came about because of a number of strands of thinking on freedom of speech that have intersected here on these boards, yet speak directly to the creation of the American republic and the political atmosphere of the current form of democracy that America claims to enjoy today. The march of freedom, to use a phrase already coined and heavily used, has been from a limited republic to a full-blown democracy, which is based on the one-man-one-vote premise. Many of the Founders suspected that the limited republic they were crafting was really a foundation for this kind of representative government, which we live under today. So what’s the real deal here? It is about personal freedom.

Who respects freedom of speech anyway? Everyone raise their hand. On the other thread we almost discovered that freedom was a “conservative value.” Interesting. Certainly, conservatives enjoy freedom of speech. That’s easy enough to prove. In 1991 I voted for Bill Clinton. The Clinton “jokes” started from day one: ranting AM radio jocks, TV commentator-entertainers (Rush), even the mainstream press seemed an endless stream of “Bubba” comments.

Right after the election, I sat having dinner in a public restaurant, with the woman who would later become my wife, (she voted for Bill also). At the table across from us was one of those large church groups; the women with big Texas hair and all, who just must have had their nightly sermon. They were loud in exchanging Clinton jokes: “Did you hear this one about Buba?” Or, “How about Hilary going to the doctor to find out that she had AIDS.” Good upstanding Christian folk they were. Those of us who voted for Bill just sat and smiled at first, thinking it was just a little of the typical, but harmless “sour grapes.” This was despite the fact that a brilliant man, a Rhodes Scholar, and the current president, was constantly berated as a “Bubba.”

Later many conservatives took freedom of speech even further: Hilary was a “lesbian,” and a hanger-on, because she was married to the “prez.” They were both thieves, stealing furniture from the White House; they were swindlers, crooked lawyers. The talk went on unabated. It was after all, Freedom of speech. Then they were murderers - Vince Foster, killed by the Clinton “drug-lords” from the Ozarks. Bill was a rapist, a molester of women. Much of this nonsense was reported in the mainstream media, and most of it unfounded. Yet that did not stop, CBS, CNN, FOX. Really? And there was an outrage that someone (Dan Rather) made an accusation on CBS that George II used his influence to get out of going to Vietnam. You would think the guy just called the prez a “murderer,” or something. Yes, I guess freedom of speech is truly a conservative value - exclusively, it would appear. So now the other shoe has fallen. Those of us who endured eight years of “Bubba calling” are enjoying our turn at Freedom of speech. But the term that is popular these days is “Bush bashing.” Some of us would rather call it what it is: politics – pure and simple. It is a time-honored, American, yet very powerful tradition of speaking out against political foes, regardless of whom they happen to be. And as someone once remarked: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

But this tirade is really just to get some sort of handle, or perspective, on the whole issue of freedom of expression and what can be said and who can say it. So, who is Matthew Lyon? He was one of the leaders of the Revolutionary generation. He fought in the Revolution under Ethan Allen, and afterwards became a congressman from Vermont. But during the crisis with France in 1798, he was convicted, and sent to prison for writing a piece in the “Vermont Journal” which dared to criticize John Adams, who was then president. But that did not stop him from being reelected by his state while he was serving his sentence.

It was under one of the new laws, passed by the Federalist government, which forbade anyone from saying, or writing anything against the government and creating “sedition” against it. The laws were called the “Sedition Laws of 1798.” But wasn’t John Adams a “lover of liberty” and one of those Founders who believed in personal freedom? Well yes, but nevertheless, he signed a set of laws which was a direct affront to the Bill of Rights. Jefferson and Madison went to work on what would later become the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions to refute what Adams and the Federalists had crafted.

It seems odd to us today that a tavern keeper could be arrested, convicted and fined a few months’ wages just for commenting in public that John Adams had a “big ass” but it really happened during 1798 in New Jersey. And this was under the watch of the Founders themselves! But the Sedition Acts proved to be a large part of the undoing of the Federalist Party, just as Jefferson predicted to Madison that it would.

But I would like you to consider one of the most radical founders of them all: Ben Franklin. The name Franklin is English, and in the late Middle Ages it meant literally “freeman.” It was a name that Franklin’s family chose for itself because it described how they conducted themselves. There is story of how one of Franklin’s forefathers found himself in trouble with the English authorities for writing disparaging poems about the King and the local lords. So it was no surprise that the family would eventually settle in New England, to gain economic, political and religious freedom, as many Puritans in England had sought. He became one of the sharpest pens and wits of the Revolutionary generation (and that’s saying quite a lot). When the Quakers were “brazen” enough to bring up the issue of slavery before the new government after 1789, they were met with a “great wall of silence” by many of the Founders. But Franklin, then dying, had himself carried to the congressional debate over the issue over slavery, to say his piece about how America could not be truly free until the abolition of slavery occurred. It was his last public appearance, but a mighty and noble one. What Franklin did and said was unpopular during his time. But that never stopped him. So why should it stop us now?

The fact remains that we enjoy a great amount of latitude in our freedom of speech today. But the question still remains: Is freedom a conservative value? Those of you with enough fortitude, bearing with the limits of my inadequate writing skills and the ponderous length of this tirade, probably have convictions of your own.

 

I think freedom is a human value. From a very young age people want to be free. Society (and parents) have to place restrictions on freedom in order to protect us from ourselves and others.

If we are concentrating on freedom of speech we still need restrictions. I can't go around saying anything I want about people. I could end up being sued. Comments can be made about public figures but there should be some basis in fact.

The Constitution of the USA gives us the right to criticize our government because without this we would be a dictatorship.

To make my opinion clear: I do not think freedom is a conservative value; I think it is human value.

 

Easy. It's Liberal. Liberties were installed by the liberal parties. Hence the name: freiheitlich. Therefore it can only be conservative, if the conservatives in case are conserving their freiheitlichkeit.

The whole confusion stems only from the missing adjectiv of freedom in English, that only allows to use the French adjectiv liberal. Which may cause some misunderstanding.

 

When I see that my friend Chandos has put so much effort into a post, I am forced to respond.

First. Yes, I know who Matthew Lyon is...I learned about him while preparing to teach my own children about American history. It was a sad period for civil rights in our past...not only for seditionists...but for those affected by the "Alien acts" as well. But we need to be careful that we don't portray all of the Federalist ideals as bad...much of our current government mirrors the ideals of Alexander Hamilton and his Federalists, and those ideals have translated very well into a global economy and the visage of the US as a superpower.

Second...I apologize to you for the anger you felt at hearing the President you adored referred to as "bubba"...must be similar to the way I feel when 'W' is called "shrub"...or worse...some part of the female anatomy by his detractors.

Third, and finally...I truly believe that "Freedom of Expression" began as a liberal ideal, but has become a conservative value. I'll try to explain...and bear in mind, this comes from a former liberal and democrat.

Originally, freedom of expression was a liberal, democratic ideal ("sorry", to our International members who don't know what I mean). There was a beautiful idealism to the anti-war movement in the 1960's...an idealism that captured many of us as we grew up in the 70's and 80's.

As the "democratic" revival grew in strength and elected Jimmy Carter in the late 70's...a certain truth began to set in...in order for liberalism to succeed, everyone needed to fit into some sort of group.

It was then, and into the 80's, as Reagan dismantled the Soviet Union, that we began to settle into social groups. Liberalism accepted these social groups...union workers, feminists, gays...while Conservatism continued to to try to look toward the individual.

Since that time, there has been a startling dichotomy. Conservatives speak of the power of the individual...Liberals speak of the power of a group...ie. you have power, but only if you adopt your "group"...'these are the ideals of a gay man'...'these are the ideals of a lesbian single mom' yada-yada-yada.

Liberalism has seriously dropped the ball, and Conservatism had done a far better job at fighting for personal human rights. I've seen firsthand how Conservatism has done more to protect the rights and views of a gay, wiccan female than the liberals who insisted she fit into one of their carefully contrived 'interest groups'.

So, Chandos...Freedom of Expression began as a liberal ideal, but is currently only supported by conservative politics in the US...hence my love for conservatism, and my mournful respect for liberalism.

I promise...it's hard to be me.

 

Hack, it should be obvious that if even a single liberal supports "freedom of expression" it's not supported "only" by conservative politics. There must be one somewhere. Maybe if we turn over a few rocks....

"God made them as stubble to our swords." Nope, that's not it.

"Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Fuhrer!" Nope again.

"Heeere's Johnny!" Still nope.

Well, I'll keep looking. I'm sure there's one somewhere.

[ February 07, 2005, 03:55: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

Ok, HS. Your points are well taken here. Yet, I think you misunderstood a few things. First, it never really bothered me that Clinton was referred to as Bubba. It was the other things that were said that I found so troubling. Charges that were never proven, yet bantered about in the media, with no regard at all to their substance. For instance, remember how Clinton and his people supposedly trashed the White House? Yes, well there was huge talk about, as if it were true. Well, it never really happened. It was just a dirty trick by the Bushies, and a quiet retraction was posted in some places. But no one batted an eye. So much for the liberal media.

Second: I am an admirer of both Hamilton and Adams, espeically the latter. John Adams is probably the most underrated and misunderstood of all the Founders. He had a brilliant amd witty mind that was devastatingly logical. His approach to the formation and crafting of government is unequaled by anyone, including Madison and Hamilton. The Constitution of Massachusetts is still that oldest functioning constitution that I know of. And both liberals and conservatives like to claim him as a kindred spirit.

Edit: I almost forgot. I like how Reagan gets all the credit for dismantling the Soviet Union. For almost forty years, American presidents fought the Soviet Union in the Cold War with tooth and nail. And somehow Reagan gets all the credit. Yes, he continued the fight, and saw it to a conclusion. But single-handedly? I don't think that was the case.

 

This has always been a twofold issue for me. So much as I despise suppression of critique, I despise slander. I don't want people squelched, but I don't want people insulted with impunity.

I've been in both situations. I know how it is when you can't say anything even to your defence because the other person's authority is more important than your rights or even the objective truth. But here's the catch: I've also been in situations where someone's freedom of speech has been more important than your rights or even the objective truth itself.

It seems we're touching on the right to defence. I think these two are intertwine. I believe that in no case should the right to reply to critique or to defend from accusations be abridged. No matter who the accuser or critic is, no matter his wealth, power or even merit.

Next, I have a problem with FBI and other undercover government agents being allowed to do things to you but you being not allowed to identify them under the penalty of treasure or whatever. This sucks. No matter who it is, if someone is doing you wrong, you should have full unabridged freedom to speak about it.

Next still, I believe it harms the government's authority when it puts people behind bars for calling funny names or such, than if they just ignored it. It's ridiculous to put someone in jail for a couple of months because he said the president's arse was fat.

If you want a more recent example, do a search on Father Norman Weslin, aged over 70, a retired US Army Lt Colonel once responsible for the nuclear defence of the New York state, now put in jail for five months by a US judge for saying rosary in front of an abortion clinic.

If I lived there, I would take my rosary and go pray before the court itself. Wonder what sort of criminal charge I would get for this - if I would actually get a charge...

It teaches us a lesson, that in the country which loves freedom so much as the United States do, there has been so much initiative to cripple that freedom and indeed to stump on all freedom in the name of a democratically elected government supported by and responsible before a demoratically elected congress.

In the country where the Declaration of Independece and the Constitution along with the Amendments was signed, the police and other government agents can strip you of all your dignity and actually literally strip you of everything at their discretion (http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/34/49.html, http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/20/1182.html ).

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Afghanistan topic could be brought up to illustrate that the rights and freedoms are sometimes not believed to extend to non-citizens.

The first step in righting the wrongs and rectifying the situation should be a firm conviction, followed in practice, that human rights and freedoms apply to all individuals, no matter their origin or attitude towards the government.

The second step should probably be shortening the leash of the government agents.

The third step, I believe, should be more control over the executive. Granted, parliaments are unfit to run the current internal and external affairs, let alone police the country, but unrestrained executive is an ideal environment for human and civil rights abuse.

In my very humble opinion, the problem comes from too much of a blind-eye attitude under the guise of tolerance. There's no longer right and wrong, there are just many competing values. And the government's strong arm. People aren't taught what's good and what's bad. They are taught that everyone thinks different on the issue and the right thing to do is not to give a damn and let people do as they please, no matter the consequences.

As a side-note, I believe Clinton earned his sex-related appellations so much as Bush has been working on his intelligence-related ones. And both have lied in public, Clinton under oath, which puts them out of a certain bracket from me.

[ February 06, 2005, 00:39: Message edited by: chevalier ]