By Dani Tietz
dani@sjodaily.com
There are many topics on the forefront of American’s minds today.
Recently we’ve seen a lot of talk about our right to assemble–whether it is in church, at a restaurant, in protest or solidarity. Lawmakers have been sued over the right to attend church, citing that a stay-at-home order curbed freedom of religion. We’ve questioned people’s right to bear arms, whether men bring a weapon to a protest or law enforcement hold similar firearms.
It seems with each new day the way that we approach and fight for our Constitutional freedoms is transformed. Some agree to the right to assemble in restaurants, but not bars. Some agree with the right to protest a stay-at-home order, but not a Black Lives Matters movement. Some agree with the right to religious freedom if it aligns with their own perspective, but not in worshipping another god.
Free speech is no different. We love to listen to another speak when it makes us feel comfortable or understood. But when the bomb goes off inside because another sees a topic from a different viewpoint, we want them to shut up. We love freedom of speech when it is non-aggressive, when it is something that will charge you up or when it comes from your affiliated political party, but when the words that come out of someone’s mouth infringe on a singular viewpoint of the world, we are not only quick to judge, but also love to figure out a way to squelch or discredit the person.
American’s Constitutional rights are easy to accept when they reflect our own ideals or agendas.
Personally, I struggle with Freedom of Speech, especially in this day and age.For example, I was enraged and disgusted when I watched white supremacists gather in Charlottesville in 2017.
Do they have the right to assemble like that? Do they have the right to spew out hatred? Do they get to carry guns in town like that?
Whether it’s right or wrong, when I hear something that starts my fire inside, I try to put myself in someone else’s shoes. In this case, as the men at the rally were being identified, there was a man from Indiana who was interviewed. I read about how he was scared that white people would be taken over by another race.
While I was taught in Indiana schools, I did not learn that the white race may one day be extinct. Instead, culturally I was taught that we needed to be vigilant of black people, that they often commit crimes, that they have a different culture, and that my family would not accept it if I dated a black person.
I could understand that the idea of a race becoming extinct was just lunacy, but I heard his fear and thought that to not perpetuate that, we need to change the system in which our children learn.
And at the same time, I thought, does a publication have the right or even the responsibility to not print these types of quotes? It might put an idea in someone’s mind, it might insight further anger no matter how you view the topic and there is a chance that it would hurt a reader’s feelings.
More recently, these words have come out of my mouth, “Donald Trump should not get a platform,” “Companies should ban him,” “The press should not cover him,” “And he does not get a microphone anymore.”
I need to check myself, though, because I know that the measure of my belief in freedom is not when I agree with the ideas, but when I agree that others have the right to have the freedom when I don’t agree.
In the same way as President Trump has a right to use public forums to state his point of view, the owner of the forum has the right (and as we move forward) maybe even the responsibility to provide factual accountability to the readers. Even if they don’t have the responsibility, it is their right under the Bill of Rights to do so.
As I listened to comments about the Illinois stay-at-home order, in April and May, I became more and more curious about the extent of our rights. You see, I know that freedom of speech does have its limitations.
The Supreme Court has found that freedom of speech provides no protection for libel and slanderous speech, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement and fighting words, among others. Basically, your free speech ends when it is dangerous or harmful to others.
It was interesting to watch the debates over freedom of religion the last few months. It seemed that the right to worship any God was not taken away, but rather the right to do it in a group of fellow congregates outside a family unit was temporarily prohibited. It seemed that the right to assemble was being taken away, but yet it was only limited.
Some of the people who were upset because their rights were being taken away had no problem using their right to freedom of speech; I heard and read people commenting on our Governor’s waistline and criticizing a doctor’s Spanish, among other observations that had nothing to do with a differing opinion.
Is it right for a platform to allow this type of speech? Is it right for a news publication to reprint this type of speech? Is it right for people to be able to speak these words?
Perhaps where I get caught up sometimes is the difference between what is legally or fundamentally right and what is intrinsically right or socially right. Perhaps there are situations when the two do not go hand-in-hand.
On top of all of these thoughts, every day I look at the Freedom of the Press and ask what is its role in all of this? What responsibilities does a publisher have to the present and future in capturing perspectives?
Should only one perspective, what I or my team deems as the right perspective, be allowed? Should all voices and sides be represented? Should we caution writers to make sure that the narrative reflects a common vision with community leaders? Or should we allow for the Freedom of Expression in the same way as the Constitution and the courts have?
The Fairness Doctrine used to outline the answers to some of these questions.
Introduced in 1949 by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Fairness Doctrine required the discussion of controversial matters and the responsibility to tell both sides of the coin.
By 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was overturned because it, too, limited freedom of speech.
The Constitution and the law has proven to be pretty concrete with a lot of leeway for interpretation. The answers are not black and white. Sometimes it’s easy to drown in the grey area.
As Americans, our Constitutional rights are human rights. Still we often forget that in many, many parts of the world those human rights don’t exist. While people in America were worried about their right to assemble at a restaurant, my friend’s husband in India would be arrested if he left his home.
Sometimes I wonder if the angst I feel towards personal, American freedoms is answered in the fact that the right should be vast and wide, yet, as Americans, we should realize that our personal rights are also a privilege. And, in my opinion, that means they also come with responsibility. I agree that a governing body should not tell us that we have to regulate them, but, instead, I believe that we have an internal conscience that has priorities that can can balance our right with our privilege.
