If George Orwell envisioned the future as a
boot stamping on a human face, a fair representation of our present day
might well be a muzzle on that same human face.
“The vitality of civil and
political institutions in our society depends on free discussion… It is only
through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains
responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right
to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one
of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.”—Justice William O. Douglas, Terminiello
v. City of Chicago (1949)
Shame on the U.S. Supreme Court for making a mockery of
the First Amendment.
Over the course of
its 227-year history, the Supreme Court has defended the free speech rights of Ku Klux Klan
cross-burners, Communist Party
organizers, military imposters, Westboro Baptist Church
members shouting gay slurs at military funerals, a teenager who burned a cross
on the lawn of an African-American family, swastika-wearing
Nazis marching through the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie,
abortion protesters and sidewalk counselors in front of abortion
clinics, flag
burners, an anti-war activist arrested for wearing a jacket bearing the
words “F#@k the Draft,” …. On and on…
Basically, the Supreme Court has historically had no problem
with radical and reactionary speech, false speech, hateful speech, racist
speech on front lawns, offensive speech at funerals, anti-Semitic speech in
parades, anti-abortion/pro-life speech in front of abortion clinics, inflammatory
speech in a Chicago auditorium, political speech in a private
California shopping mall, or offensive speech in a state courthouse.
So when activist
Harold Hodge appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend his
right to stand on their government plaza and silently protest the treatment of
African-Americans and Hispanics by police, it should have been a no-brainer,
unanimous ruling in favor of hearing his case.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is not quite as keen
on the idea of a robust First Amendment as it used to be, especially when that
right is being exercised on the Court’s own front porch.
Not only did the Court refuse to hear Hodge’s appeal, but in
doing so, it also upheld the 60-year-old law banning expressive activity on the
Supreme Court plaza.
Incredibly, one day after District
Court Judge Beryl L. Howell issued her strongly worded opinion striking
down the federal statute, the marshal for the Supreme Court—with the approval
of Chief Justice John Roberts—issued even more strident regulations outlawing
expressive activity on the grounds of the high court, including the plaza.
Talk about a double
standard—a double standard upheld by a federal appeals court.
What a load of tripe.
Of course the Supreme Court is not going to be swayed by you
or me or Harold Hodge.
This ban on free speech in the Supreme Court plaza,
enacted by Congress in 1949, stems from a desire to insulate government
officials from those exercising their First Amendment rights, an altogether
elitist mindset that views the government “elite” as different, set apart
somehow, from the people they have been appointed to serve and represent.
We’re nearing the end of the road for free speech and
freedom in general, folks.
With every passing day, we’re being moved further down the
road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship,
violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for
our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security,
tolerance and so-called “government speech.”
Indeed, the Supreme Court now has the effrontery to
suggest that the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment
activity that takes place within a government forum, justifying such censorship
as “government
speech.”
The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness,
safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes 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 outside
of the halls of government for expressive activity, the First Amendment has
lost all meaning.
If we cannot stand silently outside of the Supreme Court or
the Capitol or the White House, our ability to hold the government accountable
for its actions is threatened, and so are the rights and liberties which we
cherish as Americans.
Living in a so-called representative republic means
that each person has the right to stand outside the halls of government and
express his or her opinion on matters of state without fear of arrest.
That’s what the First
Amendment is all about.
Clearly, the government has no interest in hearing what
“we the people” have to say.
We are now only as free to speak as a government official may
allow.
Without the First Amendment, we are utterly helpless.
We are becoming a nation of idiots, encouraged to
spout political drivel and little else.
If George Orwell envisioned the future as a boot stamping on
a human face, a fair representation of our present day might well be a
muzzle on that same human face.
----
----
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario