Playing With Ironies

“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 the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” These are among the first rights established in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America: rights foremost in the minds of a blossoming nation that endured much under the tyrannical rule of a government that made no allowances for freedom of expression or thought. However, many have wondered whether the Founding Fathers of this formidable nation realized that the right of free speech might be placed in jeopardy by the passage of legislation targeted to penalize bigoted or insensitive speech. Some citizens may feel that the federal government should punish defamatory and demeaning comments beyond the already existing laws that protect citizens from libel and slander.

Although Congress had already passed the bill, legislative action in regards to Amendment Number 2067 has sparked the interest of citizens around the country. The Amendment allows special federal protection from derogatory remarks targeted specifically towards homosexuals and trans-gender individuals. However, if homosexuals are granted this special sanction by the law, there is nothing to stop all other minorities, special interest groups, or religious groups to petition the government to pass legislation that prohibits individuals from using phrases or terms offensive to them, posing a rather critical problem. The heart of the problem lies in where the boundaries for such a law should be drawn and who would draw them, making a legislation of this nature a potential threat to First Amendment freedoms. In the case of Amendment 2067, one may ask where the distinction is between what is legally acceptable for individuals to say or even think, and who will be regulating and amending this distinction. It is difficult to draw the line between what is universally morally acceptable and what is legally acceptable. Although the opinions of an individual may be unpopular or perhaps even fallacious, the First Amendment still guarantees citizens the right to express these types of opinions through free speech or press. Indeed, the purpose of the First Amendment is to allow American citizens to peaceably discuss ideas and pursue truth without fear of imprisonment by the government.

However, this is not to say that citizens should speak offensively or uncivilly towards religious or ethnic groups. In the early 1990’s several students at Harvard University displayed Confederate flags from their dormitory windows, which was then responded to by a flag bearing a swastika. Derek Bok, the president of Harvard during the incident, made the observation that, “the fact that speech is protected by the First Amendment does not necessarily mean that it is right, proper, or civil […] hanging a Confederate flag in public view—or displaying a swastika in response—is insensitive and unwise because any satisfaction it gives to the students who display these symbols is far outweighed by the discomfort it causes many others […] to disapprove of a particular form of communication, however, is no enough to justify prohibiting it.” However, Bok makes it clear that even though the flags were insensitive, their insensitivity does not merit a law that prohibits them. The right to free speech does not need to be impinged with more restrictions that may prevent the exchange of ideas. However, with the freedom to express ideas of truth and progress, comes the freedom to speak from prejudice or malice. This is the price of American freedom.