- Font Size:
- Default font size
- Larger font size
BY SHYLOH KARSHNER
skarshner@nwitimes.com | Tuesday, July 05, 2005 | (No comments posted.)
Don't like what you hear?
You may have to live with it.
The fact that most people dislike a given message, speaker or cause doesn't mean that they -- or the government -- can legally silence the speaker.
At least not in the United States.
Studies show Americans may not know all of their First Amendment rights, but if they know one, it's usually freedom of speech. The First Amendment forbids the government from, among other things, abridging that freedom.
Americans usually proudly embrace the right to speak freely -- at least until they fervently disagree with someone else's speech or expression.
Don Wruck practices law in Crown Point and teaches media law at Valparaiso University. He said challenges don't arise over speech the majority finds acceptable, but what is found widely unacceptable.
"What's really interesting -- and it's illustrated when you look at the history of the cases that have come before the Supreme Court dealing with the First Amendment -- is the First Amendment ends up protecting speech that most of us don't want to hear," Wruck said.
For example, many cities, including Gary, have tried to prevent the Ku Klux Klan from rallying and presenting its message.
While the Klan's message may be unpopular or even hateful to the majority, the Klan is guaranteed the same First Amendment rights as any individual or group. Usually, cities cite a fear of violence and disorder as reason to prevent such rallies. But when the rally planners argue free-speech rights, the judicial decisions rarely favor the cities.
Another issue -- one debated for years in Hammond -- are the rights of free expression for the owners, employees and customers of adult-oriented businesses, such as strip clubs. While a community may want to rid itself of such establishments, courts frequently uphold their right to exist.
"As a general philosophy, the courts embrace the marketplace of ideas and principles," Wruck said. "The Supreme Court has consistently told us that speech, good and bad, needs to be out there.
"It's not the job of the government to censor that."
Wruck said people need to understand the First Amendment is intended to protect against the government infringing upon anyone's and everyone's rights, not just those of the acceptable or popular.
Experts interviewed said American society is served because the right itself -- not a given idea, person or particular speech -- is protected.
Still, the First Amendment protections are not a blank check for anarchy.
"The First Amendment seems absolute on its face, but it's not a guarantee," he said. "The courts determine how it is applied."
Elaine Badnarik will admit that libertarian views aren't the most popular in Lake County, where she has lived for 49 years. She does, however, enjoy the right to her freedom of speech, just like everyone else. Maybe more. And she wants everyone to know, "Libertarians aren't kooks."
Badnarik ran for Indiana lieutenant governor on the Libertarian ticket in the 2004 elections. Her son, Michael, ran for president on the same ticket.
"The main idea of the Libertarian Party is to follow the Constitution the way it was written," she said. "There is a difference between what goes on and what the Constitution says is correct."
She said the freedom of speech is important because everyone doesn't have the same philosophies.
"If that's taken away, we no longer have a democracy, and it's already on the skids right now," Badnarik said. "We have very few freedoms."
Everyone has to get involved to preserve the freedom of speech, she said.
"You can't wait for the next person, and there's no such thing as being too old or too young."
Wruck said people should insist that the judicial branch, which is charged with upholding these rights, interpret the First Amendment as intended.
"In these times there is a concern about terrorism," he said. "But we can't sacrifice our freedoms in the name of protection. We have to be very cautious about sacrificing our freedoms."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the rights of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
According to the State of the First Amendment 2005 Final Annotated Survey as reported by the First Amendment Center
63 percent of Americans could name the freedom of speech
20 percent of Americans could name the freedom of religion
16 percent of Americans could name the freedom of the press
14 percent of Americans could name the right of assembly
3 percent of Americans could name the right to petition
35 percent of Americans think the U.S. Constitution should be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag, 63 percent do not.
Back to story No comments posted.
- It wasn't clear, concise or focused on the topic in the story.
- It was a personal attack, vulgar, explicit or degrading, used actual or implied profanity or contained potentially libelous statements.
- It accused someone of being guilty of a crime.
- It promoted violence or illegal acts.
- It contained telephone numbers or street addresses, or e-mail addresses and links to Web sites other than nwi.com or government agencies.
In no way do these comments represent the views of The Times or Lee Enterprises.
Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude and profane language and personal abuse are not welcome.
Reader comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined. They may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
If you feel a posted comment has violated these guidelines, please email our New Media team the commenter's name, the comment and a link to the article.
For more information please read our Terms of Service.