By Richard ReebContributed Content <\/p>\n
Congress shall make no law . . . 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. <\/p>\n
Surely, the freedom guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution are a timely topic given the lengths to which boorish behavior is being taken by some, while claiming legal protection. Could angry and unreasoning mobs really be what the Founders had in mind when they penned those immortal words? <\/p>\n
The key word in the First Amendment is peaceably. As the Constitution establishes a government for the United States of America, it places all discussion within that framework. That is, public oral, written or electronic communications must serve the purposes and follow the procedures laid down by our supreme law and cannot justifiably be in conflict with them. <\/p>\n
Put another way, public discussion is justified so long as it is about how, not whether, to achieve our goals as a nation. Speech or publication that aims to undermine or overthrow our form of government is rightly denominated as unconstitutional and certainly seditious. <\/p>\n
Our ancestors revolted against a despotic government, engaging in illegal and violent means, including prolonged warfare, to end British imperial authority in the 13 American colonies. But the sequel was the establishment of republican governments in all of them and, ultimately an effective federal government. <\/p>\n
The American Revolution was legitimate only to the extent it brought self-government to the North American continent, but not to institutionalize revolution. To forestall that possibility, frequent elections of the peoples representatives were adopted to secure the consent of the governed. <\/p>\n
The most severe test of our constitutional framework came in 1860 when seven, ultimately 11, Southern states attempted to secede from the federal union. When rebel forces fired on Fort Sumpter in 1861, the situation changed from one of extreme agitation to full-scale war. Fortunately, that rebellion was crushed. But unless the nation learns the appropriate lessons from the Civil War, we will not have benefited. <\/p>\n
Before the conflict began, mostly Southern politicians were not only declaring a right to block the enforcement of federal law and even the Constitution, but asserting that the Declaration of Independence was based on a self-evident lie. In their defense of chattel slavery, they struck at the central idea of the American Republic that held that all human beings are equally endowed by God with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They even said that such a proposition was unscientific, arguing that the emerging idea of the survival of the fittest applied not just to species but to the races of mankind as well. <\/p>\n
Slaverys apologists argued that Caucasians had established their superiority and consequent right to rule over inferior races. Accordingly, the Confederate Constitution distinguished itself from the U.S. Constitution by inserting the word slave without apology and avoided the latters more ambiguous word person. <\/p>\n
A comprehensive account of our nations greatest crisis is possible only if we recall that open rebellion was preceded by seditious and even heretical speech. If one denies, as Confederates did, the truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, it is just a matter of time and opportunity before our form of government is at risk. <\/p>\n
It is striking that the angry left in America, while professing dedication to equality, denies that our ancestors or their descendants shared that dedication. The claim is that the very existence of slavery proved their hypocrisy, if not their evil intentions for persons of African descent. <\/p>\n
The steady progress of justice that ended both slavery and compulsory racial segregation gives the lie to that claim. Of course, if the left is wrong in its diagnosis, America deserves not only the benefit of the doubt but our peoples full dedication. Mimicking their Confederate mentors, todays progressive left is arguing that America is based on a lie. Because its minions believe that lie, they feel free to reject any and all authority that stands in their way. <\/p>\n
It never made sense to hold that those who speak or write about our Constitution with contempt are entitled to the full protection secured by the First Amendment. The germ of rebellion against it lies with the heresy that acts of the freely chosen representatives of the people can be defied at will. <\/p>\n
We should certainly hear the arguments of the Republics critics if we are to know what they are about, but we are not obliged to be shouted down, driven from our public (and even private) places or put in fear of our lives. The First Amendment, properly understood, absolutely favors peaceable speech. The alternative is mob rule. <\/p>\n
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow Community College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of \"Taking Journalism Seriously: 'Objectivity' as a Partisan Cause\" (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net<\/a> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Continued here: By Richard ReebContributed Content Congress shall make no law . . . 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. Continue reading
\nWhat our First Amendment freedoms are for - News - DesertDispatch ... - Desert Dispatch<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"