The Anti-Federalist George Mason carefully drew up the first "bill of rights" in the Virginia constitution in 1776. Just 15 years later, Congress ratified the Bill of Rights that most Americans are familiar with today.
James Madison drew heavily on the ideas Mason presented in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.
One of the rights included in both documents is that of "freedom of speech."
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech."
Congress honored this guarantee until World War I, when they passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts.
Upon the passage of these laws, thousands of investigations and prosecutions commenced.
Eventually, the Supreme Court decided that speech that created a "clear and present danger" was not guaranteed under the First Amendment. In the 1920s, similar opinions by the Supreme Court upheld their restriction on free speech. Several Vietnam-era court rulings further defined "freedom of speech."
Why do these decisions matter today? Freedom of speech is perhaps the most important guarantee in the Bill of Rights. It keeps government accountable.
Without freedom of speech, there would be no need for freedom of religion, the press, the redress of grievances or to peaceable assembly.
French political philosopher Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it."
Personally, the demise of liberal media pleases me. The failure of Air America and the downfall of Dan Rather prove to me that Americans are, on the whole, rational and logical human beings - that American liberalism can not defend itself against the truth.
And while I would rather restrict the rights of the Left Wing, I recognize the importance of their freedom of speech, just as I recognize my own. In that regard, I agree with Voltaire.
The Democrat-controlled Congress does not, however, recognize the importance of free speech at this time. Currently, politicians like New York Representative Maurice Hinchey are working hard in Washington to curb our freedom of speech.
Their censorship is conveniently veiled as the "Fairness Doctrine," and it is probably the most inaccurately named piece of legislation since the U.S. Patriot Act.
The Fairness Doctrine seeks to "equalize" the playing field in political commentary. Where liberal talk radio has failed miserably, the Fairness Doctrine provides those with opposing viewpoints of major talk radio personalities - nearly all conservative - to respond to any opinion made by that individual.
Not only is this not fair to conservative talk radio, but it is also not fair to those hundreds of other viewpoints not expressed by the conservative's opponent.
There are not only two viewpoints on the war in Iraq or abortion or religious freedom. There are oftentimes multiple opinions on one issue. To restrict free speech to only two opinions is obviously not fair.
Freedom of speech is probably the most important guarantee by the government in the Bill of Rights, but everyday Americans are letting that government limit that freedom by introducing unconstitutional legislation.
These illegal actions must be revealed and curtailed by the American public. If not, we soon could be living in an eerily-Orwellian America.
Matthew Hurtt is a sophomore liberal arts major and can be reached at mch2x@mtsu.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!