We talk a lot about freedom and often refer to our Bill of
Rights, particularly Amendment I.
Yet do we really think about what we mean when we say we
have the “freedom to do so and so”?
Freedom of expression?
Freedom of religion? Freedom of
speech? Freedom of the press? Freedom of everything?
Realistically, do we have freedom of speech? If you are a student on a college campus
today, the chances are you do not.
Speech codes, while patently unconstitutional, are practiced at any
number of schools today. And, for the
most part are upheld by the Supreme Court.
The claims, whether justified or not, are that so called “hate” speech
can be destructive, detrimental to the ability to teach and learn and any
number of other “reasons”, all calculated to control the student’s speech on campus!
In the same vein, there are those who would and do try to
restrict political speech.
Have we passed the point of fairness and are rapidly
becoming incapable of self-government? While epithets can be painful, there was a
time when children responded with “sticks and stones may break my bones, but
names will never hurt me!”
Freedom of worship?
The amendment says, “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”
As you witness municipalities restricting their citizens placement of
religious scenes, even on private property, do you believe the government is
abiding by the restriction to “keep its hands out of religion?” It seems that even the Supreme Court wants to
accept the idea that there is a wall of separation between church and
state. The document itself states that
government cannot dictate the establishment of a religion nor can it restrict
(prohibit) your freedom to espouse openly whatever religion you profess. Consider whether that is the present
situation or whether the government is “dictating” what you as a citizen can do
with respect to religion. Government
should remain neutral, denying either side a positive response. Constitutionally, the concern should remain
at the state level and not the federal government.
Freedom of the press?
Since when? From the very
beginning, there have been those opposed to the idea that an editor could write
whatever he or she wanted and publish whatever he or she considered appropriate
or in context with their purpose. Editors
have always had final say over what gets printed. That is part of their responsibility. If the efforts please the readers, the
publication succeeds. If they do not,
the activity will probably cease to exist.
You may disagree with an editor but that does not deny you the right or
opportunity to start your own publication or find one to present your views,
whatever they may be.
Freedom to assemble?
Most municipalities have rules and/or regulations on public meetings or
assemblies. But, the decision as to who
or what organization is approved now rests almost exclusively with whoever the
person is in charge of the area involved.
As for petitioning the Government for a redress of
grievances. Good luck. Right
or wrong, the roadblocks to such action have historically prevented any success. Most often, the individual or group seeking
such a redress is declared by the court hearing the case as not having
“standing” and thus is disqualified from being able to plead their case.
It would seem that the only true freedom an individual has today,
is freedom of thought. Just be careful
to whom you express it. That’s my
view. What’s yours? Reach me at constitutionviews@gmail.com
©Copyright
2014 Hillard W. Welch
