In society today, there is the oft-forgotten principle of Americans’ right to free speech. This is frequently evident on Ivy-League college campuses and at various party-political rallies where speakers wish to voice some opinion that is deemed contrary to those of liberal or radical audience members; consequently, the speakers are shouted down and thus prevented from voicing their views.
These outrageous outbursts demonstrate that freedom of speech exists only under law and not independently of it. For example, some lecturers at various venues recently would not have been able to continue had they not been given active aid by officers of the law.
Others could reach the hall only with the protection of police. They could deliver their message only because officers restrained the mob and could make their getaway only under police protection.
In specific terms, the guarantee of free speech depends mainly on a local law enforcement agency, which is maintained by law-abiding taxpayers; and who, regardless of their own feelings, risk themselves to maintain supremacy of the law.
In recent cases involving visiting college lecturers, Democratic and Republican party front-runners or those offering radical or bigoted demagoguery on race, corruption, bias and prejudice in city precincts, the communal or individual’s theoretical right to speak free from interference would have no legitimacy if a municipality should withdraw its officers to some other section of the city, or if the men assigned to the task of keeping civic order in the streets should choose to look the other way when the crowd threatens.
Can our society be expected to keep these officers in service to the community should violence erupt and force the police into dangerous action, or put the officers in danger themselves?
Yet, no one will disagree that the fundamental, permanent, and overriding policy of police and courts should be to permit and encourage utmost freedom of utterance. It is the legal right of any American citizen to advocate peaceful adoption of fascism, communism, atheism, socialism, or capitalism—but in an orderly and civilized manner.
Similarly, a speaker may go far in expressing sentiments whether pro-Semitic or anti-Semitic, pro-Negro or anti-Negro, pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic—even at the expense of so-called political correctness. He is legally free to argue for some anti-American system of government or gender policy to supersede by constitutional methods the ones we have.
Still, it is our philosophy that the course of government should be controlled by a consensus of the governed. This process of reaching intelligent popular decisions requires free discussion. Hence, we should tolerate no law or custom of censorship or suppression—even if the restrictions or decrees are buttressed by our highest elected officials.
Likewise, it is deceitful and criminal for the FBI to suppress potentially damaging information prior to an election or show favorable support for political parties that are corrupt and dishonest, even if it involves the family of the president of the United States.
We must also bear in mind that no serious outbreak of mob violence, race rioting, burning, looting, theft, shootings, or public disorder is likely to occur without the help of speechifying by race baiters or some other mass of malicious, malevolent, spiteful, wicked, and vindictive persons.
The street may be filled with men and women, but the crowd still might not be a mob. Unity of purpose, passion, and hatred, which merges the many minds of a crowd into a mindless mob almost invariably is ignited and fueled by thugs and hooligans.
No mob has ever protected any liberty, even its own—but if not put down it always winds up in an orgy of lawlessness, which respects no liberties.
Therefore, our authorities must control the hoodlums, criminals, and lawbreakers to preserve public order and safety by placing checks upon those whose behavior or speech calls such mobs into action.
Likewise, courts must beware lest they become mere organs of popular narrow-mindedness by yielding to prevailing opinion and feeling. Turning criminals loose on the streets is tantamount to being an accessory to injustice, an invitation to more lawlessness.
As our citizens grow in capacity for civilization and liberty, their tolerance will grow and they will endure, despite all the mistakes we make in the process.
The preamble to our U.S. Constitution proclaims domestic tranquility as well as liberty to be an object in the founding of our Federal Government, and I do not think the hallowed text denies states and their municipalities the power to enforce the law to keep our citizens safe.
—
Top o’ the morning!