How I Learned About the First Amendment

In 1974 I was ten years old when my father took me to a local Saint Patrick’s Day parade. Back then my dad harbored a lot of bigoted thoughts which were common among unionized factory workers in New England. For example he hated the Irish, often expressing the sentiment that they collectively abused alcohol. He frequently used more colorful language to describe his beliefs so I found it odd that he wanted to bear witness to a parade celebrating Saint Patrick. We were not as enthusiastic as the actual Irish people in attendance. I, for one, thought parades were boring, but there we were standing on the crowded sidewalk vying for a better spot to watch a fire truck, a clown on a bicycle and a plethora of leprechauns pass us by.

Being chronically late to every event we attended, the best position we could claim on the sidewalk was several rows back from the curb. At my youthful height I couldn’t see anything but the back side of a woman parked in front of me. Just as things were reaching the interest level of a catholic homily, the crowd all turned around and started booing. I peered through the crush of bodies to ascertain what all the ruckus was about.

“What’s going on?” I asked my father.

“Gay Pride float,” he answered.

The woman whose fundament had obscured my view was now facing me as she vocalized her displeasure. She was holding the hands of two small children who appeared puzzled as they eyed over their shoulders the festivities unfolding behind them. I continued to search in between the masses in attempts to spot the passing float. I recall a rainbow, some smiling people and music which was mostly drowned out by the increasing fervor of the crowd. My father didn’t turn his back or jeer with the throngs, but I knew his lack of expression was not tacit approval. I asked my dad,

“What does that got to do with Saint Patrick's Day?”

“Nothing,” my father reasoned, “but they got a right to be here.”

“How come?” my ten year old mind struggled.

“Because the parade uses public money so they have to allow anybody in.”

My father explained that the theme of the parade was irrelevant. The only thing that mattered was the First Amendment which allows everyone to express their opinion even if the crowd disagrees with them. The spectators turned back towards the street as the float receded.

“So they're in the parade because they have a right to be heard?” I asked.

“Pretty much,” my father answered.

The crowd suddenly began booing even louder. I peered through the mass of people as another float approached. I recall seeing a load of soldiers in brown uniforms with red armbands all raising an arm as fanatical foreign sounding words blared from a loudspeaker.

“Who are those guys?” I asked.

“The Neo-Nazis,” my father offered.

“Why do they get to be in the parade?”

“They want to be heard too.”

“But they're Nazis?"

“Free speech. Even for assholes,” my father retorted.

On the ride home my dad explained that the Supreme Court affirmed that speech may not be restricted based on content or offensiveness. He said that the harshest, unpalatable language is still protected since such words cause more discussion, more speech. In the coming years that is exactly what occurred. People exposed to alternate ideas came to realize that gay couples simply wanted the same rights as everyone else. Later I read articles that chronicled the legal difficulties of unmarried, cohabiting people when one is hospitalized or passes away. Laws established by our government were simply excluding some citizens based on who they chose to be with. Eventually organized rallies and parades focusing on Gay Pride were held in most major cities. In 2017, the Supreme Court legalized same sex marriages across the country. In contrast the rhetoric promoting the American Nazi Party led to widespread condemnation. By the mid 80's with membership in decline, the party disappeared from the election ballot.

The reason why the free expression of ideas is included in the first of the amendments is because the founders recognized that historically censorship leads to some pretty screwed up policies. Speaking out against the king usually got you thumbscrews, stuffed in a dark cell or a ride on the rack. Suppression of scientific ideas by the church led to Galileo being reprimanded to house arrest for the remainder of his life for believing the sun and not the earth was the center of the solar system. The flat, two dimensional renderings in medieval art were not because artists of the day were unskilled. They were following rules established by the church which stated religious figures had to be depicted significantly larger, expressionless and without a shadow since only earthly subjects blocked sunlight.

Today social media affords a fast and easy spread of ideas, but such platforms are not short-circuiting the process of forwarding concepts. Many people focus on the spread of misinformation prompting the encouragement of fact checking to verify accuracy. Furthermore, the condensation of complex issues to trigger words by higher educational institutions have made the younger generations feel entitled to safe spaces. 

People are sometimes fired from their job for words posted to their personal media accounts prompting states like New York to affirm via legislation that terminations for speech expressed outside of the workplace is unlawful. Connecticut is currently considering repealing a 1917 law which restricts offensive speech on First Amendment grounds. The law punishes "any person who... ridicules or holds up to contempt any person... on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person..." The ACLU supports the repeal of the law which is blatantly unconstitutional even though a 2015 Pew Research Center survey revealed that 40% of millennials support the government limiting speech that is offensive to minorities. Twitter has stepped out of its role as a platform for expressing ideas and now is a publisher that warns users of dubious posts. Due diligence used to be the job of journalists, but today the news is crafted for public consumption by corporations treading water in a 24 hour news cycle, leaving less time or interest in vetting sources.

Recently an open letter addressing free speech appeared in the online version of Harper's Magazine. Signed by 153 academics and writers including J.K. Rowling, the letter leads with acknowledgment of and support for the current protests and subsequent demands for reform. There is also an overt condemnation of the President who is described as "a real threat to democracy." The letter explains that the recent social upheaval has "intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity." As they lament the "constriction" of the "free exchange of information and ideas," the authors tread carefully ensuring that they convey support for the current narrative. In the very act of upholding "the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech," the signatories are clear that although they support liberal causes and dislike Trump, they would prefer not to be canceled themselves. In the recent past some of the signers of the letter called for severe retribution to others who posted statements on social media that they disagreed with. When the mob turned on them for their transgressions, these same people farted out a letter upholding their constitutional right to flap their trap.

Some people say the Constitution guarantees that you can say what you want but does not protect you from the consequences of what you say. That's not exactly accurate. If there are repercussions for speech, then it certainly is not free. What the Constitution does not guarantee is freedom from offense. As our culture spirals downward canceling everyone that strays from ideological conformity, I am reminded of the crowd who turned their backs on the Gay Pride float in my hometown. The uninhibited exchange of ideas along with debate, reflection and time changed those people’s hearts and minds, and eventually we all got it right.