THE RIGHT TO GOSSIP
Freedom of Speech has limits. The judiciary has taken this right and twisted it beyond all recognition, beginning with Nazis having free speech rights to parade through Jewish suburbs of Chicago. Nazis v. Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). This has led to demonstrations at funerals, demonstrations blocking interstate highways, harassment of people in their homes, and hecklers shouting down speakers as exercising their heckler right of free speech. Free speech has eventually “evolved” into the cancel culture. The critical right to civil and peaceable exercise of free speech has been bastardized to allow uncivil behavior as a matter of right. Bullying, suppression, coercion, and intimidation have replaced the civil exchange of ideas.
Catastrophic Thinking needs true free speech to allow the free exchange of ideas in order to formulate policies, which will be contrary to the wishes of selfish interest groups of all persuasions. You can only reach a consensus if all people can speak their minds and be heard. This suppression of other ideas has to be ended. Perhaps it will take a Constitutional Amendment to allow the regulation of free speech to observe certain rules of civility even in public places. The Constitution should make it clear that harassment, bullying, suppression, intimidation, coercion, and trespassing into private places and into private ceremonies are not part of free speech. Interference with the operation of strategic assets like interstate highways or power plants are crimes, not free speech. Free speech is a tool of democracy to allow ideas to be tested. Misinformation will not withstand the test of free speech; but democracy will not survive repression of ideas. Protected speech is to persuade, not to intimidate.
It does seem ironic to advocate the cancellation of those who advocate employing the tools of the cancel culture. One test should be that if the speech is seeming to cancel others’ speech, then that speech must be cancelled. Sometimes it appears that the cancel culture has its place. During the Russian-Ukraine War, those businesses which continued to do business with Russia after the American-European community ordered the boycott of all things Russian, had their names published. That was free speech, not cancel culture. Sure, it had a coercive effect and many named businesses had a public relations nightmare on their hands. But the mere publication of facts, without threats or urging to boycott, is not the cancel culture. It is the truth.
The right of assembly should not be allowed without a warning to civil authorities so they can assess and provide for the adequate resources to keep the peace. Liability should attach to demonstration organizers if their demonstration becomes unruly and violent. Demonstrations without sponsors should attach joint and several civil liability for all damages stemming from a resulting riot if the accused can be shown to have participated in damaging misconduct, with prison time if they can’t pay for the damages their riot caused. Yes, we need to force protestors to take ownership for the damages their protests cause.
Of course, the Supreme Court should make it clear that the First Amendment includes the word “peaceably.” It’s their mess, and they should clean it up.
Conversely, the Constitutional Amendment should make clear that there can be no private sector abridgement of the publication of ideas or dissemination in public or electronic forums. There should be no Ministry of Truth or its equivalent established by any public or private entity. Such “Ministries” or other forms of censorship or gatekeepers are contrary to our Constitutional principles because they are so vulnerable to abuse. Notwithstanding the foregoing, religious and business entities are empowered to restrict the content of their publications according to published rules, like the Fine Print Page of this Website.
Actually, there is one way to establish a Ministry of Truth and that is to let the opposition parties appoint the head of the Ministry. The appointee must have experience as a federal prosecutor. He or she would then be like a special counsel to investigate misinformation disseminated by our current administration.