advertisement

SSN on Facebook SSN on Twitter SSN on YouTube RSS Feed

14 Comments
Nancy Smith

What's Happened to Our Will to Preserve Free Speech?

November 25, 2015 - 7:00am

As much as we talk about protecting the First Amendment in this country, with each generation apparently we get further away from understanding it.

Don't we teach the Constitution in civics classes anymore?  

A just-released Pew Research Center survey concludes that with each subsequent generation comes a greater willingness to let government tell us what we can and cannot say -- in essence, surrender the precious freedom of speech our forefathers guaranteed in the Constitution.

I Beg to DifferThe survey asked whether people believe citizens should be able to make public statements offensive to minority groups, or whether the government should be able to prevent people from saying these things. Forty percent of Millennials -- people aged 18-34 -- said the government should be able to gag people from publicly making statements that offend minority groups; 58 percent said such speech is OK.

Compare that to the Silent Generation (ages 70-87): only 12 percent of the oldest generation think the government should shut them up; a whopping 80 percent of them said, like it or not, we get to say what we think.

In between those polar opposites are first the Generation Xers (ages 35-50) with 27 percent and  70 percent respectively; and then the Boomers (ages 51-69) with 24 percent and 71 percent respectively. Have a look at the Pew graph on this page.

Surprisingly, perhaps, the Pew Research Center finds nearly twice as many Democrats say the government should be able to stop speech against minorities (35 percent) compared with Republicans (18 percent). Independents, as is often the case, find themselves in the middle. One-third of all women say the government should be able to curtail speech offensive to minorities, as opposed to 23 percent of men who say the same.

I find all these numbers appalling.

The fact that 40 percent of millennials think government censorship of free speech -- even if it might be interpreted by some as bigoted and offensive --  is a good thing ... that is a problem. Forty percent. Think about it: You either live in a free country or you don’t. And a government that can sanction or punish you for giving your opinion is not the government of a free country and it certainly isn't the government of the one our forefathers founded.

The number of people too ignorant to understand this is growing rapidly, as the graph suggests. When the Millennials have kids of voting age -- something that will begin to happen in less than 20 years -- we could have a generation the majority of which will support government-imposed penalties on politically incorrect speech. Which the government will then get to define. And that majority will pick a president who will pick the Supreme Court that defines the limits of free speech.

You can guess the rest.

The Pew survey -- for sure, under the radar and hardly front-page fare -- is nevertheless a sobering wakeup call.  The results seem to me an indictment of both our culture and our educational system, taken over by people hostile to our values as a country.

We can't remain faithful to the First Amendment by turning our backs when it's put to its severest test -- the right to freedom of speech for those whose views we despise the most.

My fellow conservatives aren't crazy about the American Civil Liberties Union, I know. But I maintain they're wrong. I remember one of the most noted moments in ACLU history. It occurred in 1978 when the organization defended a Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie, Illinois, where many Holocaust survivors lived. The ACLU persuaded a federal court to strike down three ordinances that placed significant restrictions on the Nazis’ First Amendment right to march and express their views. The decision to take the case was a demonstration of the ACLU’s commitment to the principle that constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone. Many now consider this one of the ACLU’s finest hours.

The principles of the First Amendment -- including freedom of speech -- are indivisible. Extend them on behalf of one group and they protect all groups. Deny them to one group, and all groups suffer.

Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at 228-282-2423. Twitter: @NancyLBSmith

Comments

Nancy, you ask the question "don't they teach civics in school anymore ?" I don't think so. It's been replaced with collectivist propaganda ever since the end of WWII, one of the results being what you show in the Pew report, a high percentage of support to allow the government to block free speech.

"collectivist propaganda" - ?! LoL

Gee, perhaps this explains why GOP politicians in this state feel so free to pass laws that would restrict free speech . . . . you know, like whether doctors can even talk to their patients about certain medical topics . . . . . . . . . . blatant GOP hypocrites . . . . . . PATHETIC . . .

Excellent article! I was in a conversation today about this very subject! Great work Nancy! Thank you! It's ironic that so-called "liberals" are more likely than most others to curb such a Fundamental Liberty! The overall trend is appalling!

Gee . . . . I noticed that part of this article was in smaller print than the rest (on this site usually the result of being copied from another source), so I took just part of the line (". . . the right to freedom of speech for those whose views we despise the most") and checked out whether it had previously occurred elsewhere on the web . . . . . . . not much to my surprise, multiple, earlier nearly identical citations of this language occur on the web (i.e. back to at least 2009) . . . . . . . lest one be accused of unreferenced plagiarism, one should know when to citation the use of others' words . . . . . . . .

You're right, Frank. I found it in a 1958 high school textbook and certainly it's been repeated severally over the years, particularly by the ACLU.

Seems to me that freedom of speech and all those other well thought out principals, as carefully specified in our Constitution and its amendments, should be followed by dumocraps, repugnacans, and whigs, tories, and independents. How come dumocraps avoid the Constitution? How come dumocraps' interpretation is way so much different that the others? For the current president to say the Constitution is only a set of guidelines may well be the answer. That sure is a stupid and unAmerican statement.

Jefferson believed that both an educated and informed electorate is necessary to have an effective democracy. Corruptive government thrives on ignorance. Thus, the erosion of our public education system by failing to require every student to learn about the basic workings of our American system of government (civics) leads to ignorance of the 1st Amendment rights you speak of, which by the the way also prohibits the establishment of religion, the free exercise thereof, and freedom of the press. You are absolutely right to be concerned; we all should be. It's not so much those candidates who consistently "preach" outrageous ideas that clearly violate the 1st Amendment that concerns me, but rather, the failure of their followers to be offended by it or even realize it.

Get rid of the concept of money, as in Corporate "Free Speech", and the problem is no longer a problem.

Republicans have long held that Constitutional Rights are "up for discussion". The most blatant violation? The non-restoration of felons civil rights. That is what has been being taught, so it is no wonder young people don't understand how important those rights are. The Europeans have taught that speech is subject to control and Republicans taught them civil rights can be removed. What did you expect to have happen?

Why should a felon have restored rights? What about the felon's victims? Are they still able to express their Constitutional rights? I support the law that says, (so to speak), if you screw up....screw you!

Yea. And again, where in the Constituton does it say that? Remember, they still retain some rights. Same thing applies. If some peoples rights are subject to interpetation, so are yours.

Felon criminals' civil righs should be taken away, forever. The felon should have thought of that before he was executing the crime against others. Small punishment and good penalty.

Just where in the Constitution did our Founders say that? Pete, you just proved my point. If some Constitutional Rights are subject to denial then they all are. Meaning, at some future time your rights may well be subject to somebody elses interpretation. Just remember, your freedoms, your liberties, your rights and the control of them was given away today, by you.

Comments are now closed.

nancy smith
advertisement
advertisement
Live streaming of WBOB Talk Radio, a Sunshine State News Radio Partner.

advertisement