Popular Misconceptions Debunked
February 21, 1997
EditorSan Francisco Chronicle
901 Mission
San Francisco, CA 94103
Dear Editor and Fellow Citizen:
On February 19, 1997, the U.S Supreme Court ruled regarding the conduct of protesters around family planning clinics, and I see that the Chronicle editorially approves (Feb. 21).
The ruling falsely invokes the First Amendment's free speech clause. While everyone has the right-and civic duty-to speak out publicly regarding government matters and perceived injustice, the First Amendment does not abrogate rules of civil discourse. It does not license unseemly person-to-person conduct. It has nothing to do with such conduct and no one can show original intent in this regard.
The ruling, please note, bars pushing and shoving but also says that other conduct is protected, no matter how intrusive, insulting, peace-threatening, harassing or disrespectful it is. In reality there is no right anywhere to beat another individual's eardrums or inconsiderately and insensitively embed "messages" into another's brain cells.
No one has a right even to the individual attention of another. Ordinary civility demands that one first ask and obtain consent.
The ruling would abolish the concept that we Americans enjoy constitutional rights and liberties equally. It disregards government's obligation to afford equal protection of the laws. It repeals the Golden Rule of human conduct and disputes Articles 19 and 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding expressions of opinion.
The free speech clause pertains to parliamentary deliberative process, a collective and not an individual right. Its model is the traditional town hall meeting, where speaking is regulated in order that speech, in the collective sense, can take place.
ACLU pioneer Alexander Meikeljohn said speaking is subject to regulation "the same as shooting a gun."
The first thing the nation's founders did when meeting to write a constitution was to forbid "indecorous" speaking. Had they proclaimed freedom of speaking they would have been considered idiots.
Respectfully,Louis Worth Jones
EditorSan Francisco Chronicle
901 Mission
San Francisco, CA 94103
Dear Editor and Fellow Citizen:
On February 19, 1997, the U.S Supreme Court ruled regarding the conduct of protesters around family planning clinics, and I see that the Chronicle editorially approves (Feb. 21).
The ruling falsely invokes the First Amendment's free speech clause. While everyone has the right-and civic duty-to speak out publicly regarding government matters and perceived injustice, the First Amendment does not abrogate rules of civil discourse. It does not license unseemly person-to-person conduct. It has nothing to do with such conduct and no one can show original intent in this regard.
The ruling, please note, bars pushing and shoving but also says that other conduct is protected, no matter how intrusive, insulting, peace-threatening, harassing or disrespectful it is. In reality there is no right anywhere to beat another individual's eardrums or inconsiderately and insensitively embed "messages" into another's brain cells.
No one has a right even to the individual attention of another. Ordinary civility demands that one first ask and obtain consent.
The ruling would abolish the concept that we Americans enjoy constitutional rights and liberties equally. It disregards government's obligation to afford equal protection of the laws. It repeals the Golden Rule of human conduct and disputes Articles 19 and 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding expressions of opinion.
The free speech clause pertains to parliamentary deliberative process, a collective and not an individual right. Its model is the traditional town hall meeting, where speaking is regulated in order that speech, in the collective sense, can take place.
ACLU pioneer Alexander Meikeljohn said speaking is subject to regulation "the same as shooting a gun."
The first thing the nation's founders did when meeting to write a constitution was to forbid "indecorous" speaking. Had they proclaimed freedom of speaking they would have been considered idiots.
Respectfully,Louis Worth Jones
posted by Louis | 11:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home