A few weeks ago another blow was made against free speech in my city, Winter Park, FL. Back in August, some opponents of abortion made a protest outside the home of the CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando. As we might imagine, the CEO, a Ms. Jenna Tosh didn’t like their protest (from all that can be discovered, the protesters merely held up signs). That she was unhappy is normal—I would have had the same feeling—but then the city when beyond merely consoling her into banning free speech. Even our more liberal leaning paper, the Orlando Sentinel was shocked by this decision.
That’s right—the City Commissioners passed a ban on any form of protest against a residence. Boy, glad this rule wasn’t in effect back during the American Revolution or we would still be under the rule of the Monarch. John Hancock, Sam Adams, Paul Revere and the rest of the Sons of Liberty would be astonished.
Of course, if you keep up at all with the efforts at banning “hate speech” or the love affair with postmodernism and its offspring, a twisted version of tolerance, you aren’t really surprised. Free Speech has been under attack in the USA (and indeed all of the lands that typically encompass Western Civilization) for decades.
The problem with such attacks is that they miss what such victory brings. These kinds of stances (that the protestors have no right to speak their mind…or that they can speak their mind but only in certain locations dictated by the government) is really a form of ‘might makes right.’
See, what is being proposed is that someone gets to dictate what is right and what is wrong. Of course, usually religious groups are the ones who get accused of tossing their morality on the rest of us, but in this case, it is really the supposed proponents of “tolerance” or “progressive thought” who are enforcing their religious views on society. They have determined what they believe to be true and then use the full force of the government to enforce their desires, even at the cost of free speech.
But, the real danger of this is that once a society loses free speech, then the door is open for whoever controls power to do the same whenever they wish. Currently, for instance, “hate speech” would be anything that the left or progressives deem offensive. In Winter Park, apparently dangerous hate speech is supporting the life of babies. But, what about in a future Winter Park, even one just a few years away? What if others gain power who dislike something currently cherished. If you give away free speech now to protect what “you love,” then when the other side gains power, they will do the same thing. “Might makes right.” As long as “we” are in power, then we can and will determine what is right, what can or cannot be said openly.
This way of living of course quickly descends into a loop of violence and retribution. Look no further for examples than the various genocide stories in places like the Balkans or Africa. When one group is in power, all rights for the other side go out the window. In order to protect free speech, you have to be willing to defend the person who speaks out against whatever it is you personally believe. The Christian needs to defend the atheist. The pro-environmental person needs to defend the person who thinks there is no global warming. And yes, the pro-abortion supporter needs to champion the pro-life person’s right to speak their mind….even standing outside a residence.
One glance at our history will demonstrate why this is critical. Prior to the crisis ridden 1600s in England, the average citizen could not actually criticize the monarchy. Oh, privately, they probably said whatever they wanted, but they had to take care lest someone turn them in. Then, in 1688, the Glorious Revolution came and with it, a Declaration of Rights that Monarchs William and Mary signed. That document contained both a protection for the average citizen to protest or petition to the King as well as protection for members of Parliament for things they might say during legal sessions. In other words, the new rights in England allowed that a citizen was still being a faithful subject EVEN AS THEY OPPOSED laws or choices made by the monarch.
100 years later, when our Constitution was being written, concerns sprang up around the country that no clear provision for the same protection of free speech could be found in the document. James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” did not think it necessary due to his reading of the document—he was using a strict construction of the Constitution to mean that the Government could only do what was in the document. Since there was no provision to ALLOW the government to limit free speech, he didn’t think it important.
His opponents disagreed and argued loudly, threatening to not support the new Constitution. Thus, Madison relented and once the new Congress was called, he took the lead in getting through that body a series of amendments to the Constitution, which we now call the Bill of Rights. Leading the way was the idea that government could not limit anyone’s free speech.
Apparently, someone needs to remind my city commissioners. If we can be put in jail or financially penalized for speaking our mind, especially if peaceably, and in the process, only run afoul of one person’s specific moral rules, we have indeed lost our way.