Brandon Smith

Todd Marvin

English 001A

“Cultural Vandals” or Free Americans?

The topic of free speech is a widely debated issue. In 1998 Jeff Durstewitz wrote that “Under the guise of ‘free speech’, merchandisers are aggressively doing violence to our kids. They, in turn, are doing violence to each other. If Socrates was executed in ancient Athens for ‘corrupting the youth’, what punishment should we contemplate for today’s cultural vandals?” (“Cultural Vandals”) He goes on to say that we have the right to “set standards and limits where children – who are essentially defenseless – are concerned.” This is a dangerous view and we need to protect our free speech rights against individuals who take the position that they should be limited.

The notion of limiting free speech begs the question: Who has the authority to limit it? Our founding fathers purposefully established our form of limited government, by imposing restrictions to insure that it would not gain too much power. The First Amendment protects citizens because it does not allow Congress to limit their freedom of speech. “Congress shall make… no law abridging freedom of speech…” (First Amendment) To this day, these words stand strong against trigger-happy legislators who wish to shoot down the freedoms of Americans.

When the Constitution of the United States was written, legal scholars held the view that the First Amendment did not permit absolute free speech. They believed that absolute free speech would allow citizens to falsely accuse other citizens of atrocious crimes, which would lead to emotional, spiritual, and intellectual harm – civilized communities would disintegrate. Joseph Story wrote “Men would then be obliged to resort to private vengeance, to make up for the deficiencies of the law; and assassinations, and savage cruelties, would be perpetrated with all the frequency belonging to barbarous and brutal communities.” (Commentaries” 3:731-32) Our current laws dealing with slander and libel hold individuals responsible for what they say and write. These laws are repeatedly taken into account when considering free speech issues.

It is amazing that, even today, what Joseph Story, the author of “Commentaries”, wrote almost 200 years ago is still true in many parts of the world. “It is notorious, that, even to this day, in some foreign countries it is a crime to speak on any subject, religious, philosophical, or political, what is contrary to the received opinions of the government, or the institutions of the country, however laudable may be the design, and however virtuous may be the motive.” (“Commentaries” 3:731-32)

Governments have a frightening tendency to grow like a cancer if they are not limited. It is as if all governments have an insatiable desire to gain power over the people they rule. One of the most effective means for government to increase their power is to restrict the rights of citizens. This was horrendously demonstrated in Germany during the 1930s. Although they had a constitution that protected freedom of speech, the government wanted more control and placed restrictions on individual’s rights. The German citizens willingly accepted these restrictions, believing that this would lead to an improvement in their living condition. This continued until 1933, when President Hindenburg suspended the civil liberties of all German citizens. Once a society loses their freedom of speech rights, they soon lose all of their other rights. (“Nazi Germany”)

Durstewitz refers to Socrates being executed for “corrupting the youth” in ancient Athens, then asks whether today’s “cultural vandals” should be punished as well. Unfortunately for Socrates, he lived in ancient Athens, not in the United States of America. Today’s “cultural vandals” are subject to a completely different set of laws than Socrates was. The original intent of the First Amendment was to allow people like Socrates to speak freely, not to prohibit them from speaking in a public domain.

In addition to freedom of speech, we also have the freedom of choice. We have the right to choose whether to listen to a certain song, or go to see a certain movie. If parents do not want their kids exposed to “evils”, they can control what their children watch or listen to. Taking away an individual’s right to free speech simply because someone does not like what they are saying is unfair to the individual and not in the public interest because it discourages citizens from speaking their minds.

Scandals in the Catholic Church and in our schools involving pedophilia are a disturbing fact. Combine that with the fact that “Megan’s Law” exists, and you have a strong indicator that there are serious threats to the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual development of our children that go far beyond the issue of free speech.

Citizens should be highly suspicious when people in the guise of “protecting the children” even begin to suggest that governments should further restrict our individual rights. If the government succeeds in limiting our right to freedom of speech, it could easily find ways to eliminate all the other rights that we currently cherish.

Works Cited

Story, Joseph “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; with a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States, before the Adoption of the Constitution.” Vol. 3 1833

<http://www.constitution.org/js/js_101.htm>Nazi Germany

<http://www.thecorner.org/hists/total/n-german.htm>

Durstewitz, Jeff “’Cultural Vandals’ Hide behind Free Speech” 1998