Webgadgets Blog

The First Amendment

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:

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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is an incredible freedom that is enjoyed by many people throughout the world. Many use it as a rallying cry to defend the American way of life. I do believe the order of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights was not an accident. While the Constitution performs the incredible task of setting up a government that has lasted over 200 years, it is the Bill of Rights that really sets the tone for what that government has been able to give to the people.

I'm not one to argue that our government is perfect or that it works cleanly and efficiently. On the contrary, it has become an overly-bureaucratic system that is in need of an overhaul. Even so, such a change is well within the abilities of the constitution. It just is not in the agendas of the people we elect to administer the government. I digress.

As an American citizen, I believe that the First Amendment is the most important in defining our society, and it is essential to the culture of tolerance and sharing of ideas we have today.

Facebook Groups

Now, consider a recent experience of mine. I was recently invited by a friend to join a new (to me) type of Facebook group. This group was a petition to Facebook to take down another group. I did not join it. Both sides have a right to be heard, but I refuse to be on either side of the argument. In my opinion, as long as the group is not violating the rights of any human being or any other laws, it should not be suppressed. People should not even think to suppress it. They should be exercising their own freedom of speech to act against the agenda. Since this is all happening on Facebook, the terms of service of the site come into play. I will not deal with that because I am trying to keep this argument from becoming too detailed and technical.

Of course, this wasn't a group about gun control, health care, or any other legitimate, life-changing issue. No, the group they wanted to be removed was a group of people praying for the death of President Barack Obama. Now, we have a politically-charged situation where everyone thinks they are right. While I strongly disagree with this group, I am in no position to demand they be silenced because my very right to produce this argument (or the other group's demand that they be removed) would also have to be suppressed. Therefore, I sit in the middle like so many moderates. I look to one side to see extremists saying cruel and disrespectful things, hoping people will die, and generally being poor human beings. I look to the other side and see extremists trying to stop the other extremists by revoking their rights.

As far as I am concerned, the people who wish our President dead have serious moral (if not psychological) issues. However, as long as they are not actually causing any harm to the President, it would be ethically and legally wrong to suppress their freedom of speech.

Free Speech and the World

While ideas are more open and free in the world than ever, despite what governments attempt to regulate, there is still a large part of the world where free speech is not part of their lives. As people with an acknowledged right to free speech, we are in a position to express ourselves in ways that people in many countries cannot. This is a freedom to be shared and used to create a more cohesive global culture, promoting equality for everyone.

In order to help spread this freedom, we have to convince the regular people, the silent majority, that it is something to demand. Normal, everyday people are needed to create the support necessary to tear down enforcement of laws designed to limit free speech. It is the large group of moderates that are critically important here. Yes, there are countries governed by dictators who do not want their people to express themselves freely. However, there are plenty of ways that those countries can be helped to develop the freedom if there is general support for the idea among common people. My argument is that our goal should be to show people what this freedom mean. Help them understand how it can make life better. Do not hide the dark sides of it. Let them know that such a freedom means that others have it as well. False advertising just makes them that much angrier in the future.

Current Events

Finally, I have followed my argument through to current events. There are two events of note, one following from the other. The first event is the South Park episode "depicting" the Muslim prophet Muhammad in a bear suit. Considering the efforts they went through to not actually depict the prophet, I am quite impressed. Nevertheless, they were threatened with violence for what they did. A threat of violence is wrong in any major world religion. An argument about how what they did was wrong would be welcome. Blind threats of violence are not free speech.

The creators of the show exercised their free speech to poke at a culture that has very stringent rules about idolatry. Consider the point of view of the average Muslim, in the United States or in a country governed by the rules of Islam. This jab at their culture is targeted, but it is also walking a line to avoid breaking the letter of the rule, if not the spirit. Any thinking person should be able to appreciate that there is a difference between masking an allusion to an act versus actually performing the act.

The dispute did not end there. In Seattle, WA, some people decided that it would be clever to have a day where people around the world draw Muhammad. It has since caught on across the country. This is still free speech, and I refuse to see them censored or suppressed in any way. This is the First Amendment at work. Much like the people who are praying for the death of our President, being defended by the First Amendment and being right are not the same thing.

I could try to make an argument about why we should respect other religions because it is the right thing to do. I am going to take a more pragmatic approach, though. Throughout the world, there are normal people without strong opinions about Western culture. They live their lives without the freedoms that many of us take for granted. I'm not talking about extremists or terrorists here. I'm talking about people who wake up and go to work every day, just like anyone else. There is a very large number of these people who are Muslims. A South Park episode that ended up being censored and turned into a huge debate is not likely to offend the Muslim living a normal life without a lot of freedom. If it does offend them, I do not believe it is likely to drive them to action. However, an organized effort to attack the religious beliefs of this normal person is likely to stir up some thoughts, potentially strong thoughts, and perhaps it drives them to action. It is possible that they continue with their lives and chalk it up to those crazy Americans and their sinful ways, but it is also possible that they act.

I leave you with this question: Is attacking the beliefs of others really the appropriate place to be exercising our freedom of speech? In a world with practical problems facing us every day, is mocking the beliefs of people we should be trying to understand really going to help? More importantly, are there arguments to be made that can help move the world to a more unified and friendly place to share ideas? I do not believe that alienation is the answer to the problems of a fractured global culture. We should be demonstrating the benefits of our way of life rather than using it to attack those who are less fortunate.