All across the South, you'll find remnants of the Confederacy and the Civil War. One of the most prolific and enduring symbols of that time is the Confederate flag, a symbol that is as much a part of the history of the Civil War and Confederacy as President Lincoln's Gettysburg address. So why are so many people trying to stamp it out?
As you may know, the Supreme Court is now looking at a case from Texas regarding the Confederate flag and license plates. In Texas, where all sorts of vanity plates can be purchased by anyone willing to shell out the money, you cannot put a Confederate flag on your plate because some people deem it offensive. It is now up to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the Lone Star State has the right to censor the Confederate flag without violating the constitutional right to free speech.
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, there is a more important question that needs to be dealt with: can the balance between free speech and personal responsibility be regulated by law or the courts? The answer is an unequivocal 'no'. It is impossible to legislate responsibility without impinging on liberty; we must choose one or the other.
Our Constitutional Rights
The U.S. Constitution delineates very specific rights. Those rights all come with responsibility attached. You know the old adage that says freedom of speech does not allow one to yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater. Doing so could cause a rampage that could end in serious injuries or loss of life.
When it comes to free speech, we are on a very slippery slope. The dictionary definition of speech refers specifically to the expression of one's thoughts or ideas using spoken communications. The definition could be reasonably extended to include sign language and electronic means where audible speaking is not possible. Yet, through some erroneous decisions of the court, freedom of speech has been perverted to include every form of personal expression under the sun.
In Rochester, New York for example, the right of women to go topless in public was protected several decades ago under the guise of free speech. The freedom of speech has been used to protect everything from submerging crucifixes upside down in urine to allowing racists of all skin colors to spew their hatred. Where do you draw the line?
Yes, individual citizens need to exercise their right of free speech responsibly. However, if they do not, is it proper to force them to do so legislatively or by court order? Before you answer, remember that a decision applied by the court could someday be applied to you should others be offended by a position you take.
One Man's Passion, Another Man's Offense
We have reached a place in America in which political correctness knows no bounds. Since the founding of our country, men and women in uniform have died to protect our constitutional rights, including the right to free speech. Nevertheless, the blood of those men and women is now being trampled by a minority of people who are too sensitive, a minority of people who were allowing themselves to be manipulated by power brokers who use personal offense as a way to foment unrest and strengthen their own positions.
Conservative Irish statesman Edmund Burke once said:
"Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and the appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
Burke brilliantly observed that there must be some sort of controlling influence upon humanity in order to control those appetites that lead to unacceptable behavior. He also observed that where men and women are unwilling to control themselves, there must be law to do it for them. That is exactly where we find ourselves in 2015.
The only way to genuinely exercise the right of free speech responsibly is through a personal conviction to moral standards. If society is offended by certain forms of free speech, legislation and court orders are not the solution. The solution is a return to the Judeo-Christian morality upon which our nation was founded. If we returned to the days of right and wrong, the days of respect for others, people would be more apt to exercise their right to free speech responsibly. If we choose to regulate it instead, we will be throwing away our and liberty.
Comments