Freedom of what?

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