Byzantium's Shores: chronicling the misadventures of an overalls-clad hippie

There she goes again. Another left-of-center celebrity has spoken, and Rachel Lucas just wants them to shut up, the asshats. I've written elsewhere my thoughts on the whole "Shut up and entertain me" meme that's so common to the right, but I have some other thoughts now.

There has been a lot of talk recently about "free speech" and what it entails, particularly with regard to just what is guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution. This has resulted in a number of notable events recently, most notably and notoriously the Bull Durham fiasco, the whole business with the Dixie Chicks, and the guy who was ordered to leave a shopping mall because he wore a shirt that expressed anti-war, anti-President Bush views.

Generally, the events go like this: a prominent left-leaning person is either shouted down, told to shut up, faces a number of economic repercussions for speaking their mind, or is told to leave the premises. The aggrieved person will complain about "freedom of expression", whereupon someone else -- a right-winger, usually -- will point out, and generally rightfully so, that the First Amendment applies specifically to government-sanctioned restrictions on speech and has nothing to do with what private citizens and companies do on private property. Therefore, the Baseball Hall of Fame's decision to cancel the Bull Durham party because of Tim Robbins's and Susan Sarandon's anti-war views is not, per se, a "freedom of expression" issue.

This is, like so many things in life, partly true. But it's also partly false.

In a strict, technical sense, the First Amendment only guarantees that the government will not interfere with free speech (within certain bounds -- the proverbial shouting of "Fire!" in the movie theater, frex). But the First Amendment is more than that. If I may indulge a bit of SF geekdom, I am reminded of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation where Dr. Crusher is completely annoyed with a situation on some planet, but Captain Picard won't interfere because of the Prime Directive. He later tells her, "The Prime Directive isn't just an order; it's a philosophy, and a very correct one…" He explains how the P.D. is not a mere guideline for conduct by Starfleet personnel, but a fundamental expression of the values of the entire Federation.

It's the same thing with the First Amendment.

Yes, it serves only to keep government away from the printing presses -- it's worth remembering just why we felt the need to put that amendment in there in the first place. It's because, as a society, we decided that freedom of expression was something worth protecting. We actually sought to codify respect for dissent into the very blueprint of our government, and in a democracy, we get the government we choose. So the First Amendment should be more than just a prohibition against government intrusion into expression: it should be part of our very philosophy. The US Government should never attempt to silence people; but since this is a democracy, we are the US Government -- and therefore, we should never attempt to silence people. And yet, that's what the Hall of Fame did. It's disgraceful.

And actually, what the HoF did is worse, because what's being done now is not so much to silence people as to create an atmosphere in which it is clear that certain speech is not really welcome. The HoF was particularly bald-faced in this: they cancelled the Bull Durham celebration because Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon are anti-war liberals, but several months ago the HoF rolled out the red carpet for Ari Fleischer. I also note that both Robbins and Sarandon have indicated that they had no intention of making any kind of anti-war demonstration at the event in question. But I guess we can't run the risk, after Michael Moore's actions at the Oscars. Now, I think Moore was out of line that night -- but not because his words were dangerous or because he could put our troops in danger (a laughable concept, but that's almost literally what the HoF President said in his letter to Robbins). Rather, I thought he was out-of-line in the sense of rudeness, which is something else entirely.

Rachel Lucas proceeds to ask for specific instances where liberals have had their freedom of expression violated. She's apparently looking for specific instance in which the government has had people locked up for expressing their views, which is, I think, a very narrow way to look at the issue. Instead, we should look for ways in which the message is clearly sent to liberals that they should think twice before expressing themselves. Sadly, such cases are pretty easy to find (here, here, here, for example – and that's just after about ten minutes of searching through Atrios's archives). Surely Ms. Lucas, intelligent as she is, must be aware of how scary it is when the Press Secretary to the President of the United States is saying, in a press briefing and for the record, that "Americans need to watch what they say". (Granted, this last was in response to a fairly unfortunately-timed and not-well-worded comment by Bill Maher, but it was hardly a stupid or traitorous one.)

The First Amendment isn't just a guideline for the government. It is a philosophy, and a very correct one. It is about who we are -- a nation that stands, most of all, for the right of people to disagree with us. I fear that if we decide that dissent is unacceptable in our private lives, then perhaps on a day not too far off we might decide to extend that attitude to our public lives as well. And on that day, even if every major city between Tripoli and Kabul is a smoldering crater over which flies the American flag, the Bin Ladens of the world will have won anyway.