Posted by
Freedom Fighter on Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:32:33 PM
The recent attention to the matter of Morse v. Fredericks (Bong Hits for Jesus) in the U.S. Supreme Court is a perfect opportunity for a learning experience for us all. This case goes to the fundamental core of our existence as a nation; freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.
We take the Bill of Rights for granted, but not many of us know that there was opposition to these hallowed addendums to the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton opposed the entire concept of a bill of rights by arguing, in Federalist Paper No. 84, that the absence of power of the government to regulate the rights of citizens in the constitution was enough. Hamilton believed that, under the constitution,
"[the] people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. ‘WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.’ Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."
Hamilton believed that such a “grant” of rights by the government implied by its very nature that the conduct protected could be regulated through interpretation of the scope of those same granted rights. What could be truer today as our brethren use the courts to compel us to exercise these rights in prescribed and confusing ways?
Our founders envisioned a people that could use reason to fulfill the dream of enlightened self-government. Enlightened self-government requires us all to ask as we exercise our rights; what should I do, not simply what can I do. In sum, the ethics Hamilton refers to should temper our rights in ways that make them meaningful and sustainable. Without ethics we quickly erode to speech that is baseless and destructive.
In recent years, people have pushed the extremes of conduct and speech and use the Bill of Rights as an excuse for their conduct. They wear their extremism as a badge of honor declaring their allegiance to the god of expression. What they are really doing though is giving the rest of us more reason to use government to control their conduct and to regulate our God-given rights, just as Hamilton feared. In other words, our collective sense of ethics questions the efficacy of allowing such extreme views and conduct to exist. The coercive powers of the courts are sometimes used to compel the rest of us to accept and protect conduct we abhor or to prevent us from doing or saying things we believe are right. This litigation always ends in more restrictions, not more liberation, because ethics becomes the prisoner of jurisprudence.
What Morse v. Fredericks boils down to is whether there is a difference between “free” speech and “cheap” speech and whether schools can protect decorum by limiting cheap speech by its students. One can quibble with the details, but this is the core issue. Schools can either be a haven for ethics or a haven for cheap speech. With that in mind, what exactly is wrong with teaching and enforcing ethics and decorum in our schools?
The most important message in this case that should concern us all is that we may have lost sight of the responsibility to self-regulate speech. The point is that “Bong Hits for Jesus” is cheap speech, not free speech, and the student who proffered it should have had the decency to not unfurl his ignorance in front of a school during a parade.
I never want to get to a time when government regulates our thoughts and speech, but the only way to avoid that in the long-term is if we self-regulate our rights with the use of ethics versus legal niceties. Otherwise, the marketplace of ideas will head straight into bankruptcy and ultimate receivership by our courts.