First Amendment rights inalienable, not expendable

Published: Friday, May 1, 1998

Friday, May 1, 1998

SPEECH: Freedom to voice your protest shouldn't be a bargaining chip for economic advancement

America is walking a fine line when it comes to the issue of freedom of speech. Over the last few years, our legal system has succumbed to pressure from various special interest groups delimiting the scope of protected speech.

While ostensibly attempting to preserve "the good of the community," actions of groups that advocate in favor of everything from campaign finance reform to the elimination of teen smoking have diminished the value of the First Amendment. Amazingly, it is not unheard of now for individuals and corporations to exchange their First Amendment rights for other legal privileges.

Our constitution used to guaranteed the protection of any speech that did not create a "clear and present danger" to society. For speech to be illegal, it had to pose an obvious and immediate threat to others, such as the danger that would result from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Recently, however, the exceptions to freedom of speech have been slowly expanding. Ideas or modes of expression that were once protected by the First Amendment can be silenced through legal manipulations if they offend a significant segment of society. Last week, for example, a Chicago jury found that RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act created to prevent mob activity, was applicable to a group of abortion protectors. While the presence of the protectors may have been offensive to some, their actions should not have been deemed illegal on this basis. It appears that because the requisite "clear and present danger" was not present, those who opposed the protest resorted to bending the law.

Nadine Strossen, president of the American Civil Liberties Union, was understandably concerned about this verdict. The court's ruling demonstrated that RICO "now could theoretically be used against any kind of protest movement."

America was founded upon protest movements, and it is important to recognize that these movements continue to shape our nation. Our country's willingness to tolerate offensive speech is what differentiates our government from those of communist regimes.

In 1989, this is what the Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case of Texas vs. Johnson. Johnson's conviction for burning an American flag as a symbol of protest was overturned in this decision because the court correctly maintained that offensive speech is not illegal. In fact, it is this type of speech that our First Amendment was originally designed to protect.

Unfortunately, the trend of limiting First Amendment rights does not end with offensive speech. Challenges are being posed to any speech that does not coincide with the political agenda of the majority. For example, on the ballot this November is an initiative that would mandate that members of the California State Legislature openly declare their support of congressional term limits at the federal level. The developers of this initiative obviously believe that the need to restrict the amount of time that elected officials can stay in office is so compelling it outweighs the free speech rights of these politicians. Restricting the thoughts and actions of officials elected on the basis of their advocacy skills is the first step toward a slide down a slippery slope. At the bottom of this slope lies a badly bruised First Amendment.

Another example of First Amendment restrictions being instituted to advance a political agenda "beneficial" to the community is that of campaign finance reform. Weary of seeing politicians buckle under the pressure of heavily-contributing special interest groups, many have advocated limitations on campaign spending. However, such limitations would decrease the amount of information politicians can disseminate about their campaigns, as well as the mediums through which they promote themselves.

It is doubtful that campaign spending limitations would positively impact elections. More likely, such regulations would not only restrict the candidate's freedom of speech, but also that of his or her constituency. There would be a race between special interest groups to fill the candidate's election coffers before the spending limit was reached. Only the groups able to donate the most money, the most quickly, would be able to exert influence if the candidate was elected to office. However, even if the election impact were positive, the accompanying sacrifice of constitutional rights would be too great.

The most shocking example of the disrespect being shown to the First Amendment lies in the debate over the tobacco settlement. The fact that tobacco companies have demonstrated willingness to sacrifice their right to advertise, in exchange for immunity from future lawsuits from smokers, is outrageous. This sends the message that free speech privileges, if not economically rational, are expendable.

Freedom of speech is a precious liberty, not a playing card. The "good of the community" was considered when the First Amendment was conceived. Back then, it was determined that a nation condoning the free expression of its citizens is preferable to one in which thought and speech are stifled. It is disheartening to see so many dismiss this notion in the pursuit of lesser objectives.