"All that mankind has done, thought, gained or been: it is lying as in magic preservation in the pages of books."
-Thomas Carlyle

by Paul Lytle

We have been hearing a great deal about free speech lately . . .

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is fond of pointing out examples* of censorship from around the country. As an example, they write on their website about an instance at a Six Flags Theme Park. The park books the Ozzfest tour, but would not allow Marilyn Manson to perform when none of the other acts were removed from the show.

Liberals are still complaining about the cancellation of Politically Incorrect when Houston talk show host Dan Patrick began a campaign for listeners to tell advertisers that many people didn't appreciate Bill Mahar's anti-American comments.

A recent episode of Boston Legal criticized what it called corporate censorship. In this case, it was a nightclub owner who prevented his musical guest from singing an antiwar song.

Tim Robbins spoke of a "chill wind" blowing through the country against those who oppose the War on Terror. This wind, apparently, was preventing him from getting acting jobs.

The Dixie Chicks cried "free speech" when Country fans began burning their CDs and boycotting their shows after they made a comment against George W. Bush. The movement was so strong that it caused the Dixie Chicks to abandon Country music in favor of Rock.

We are supposed to respond in shock and horror at all of these situations and cry out to remedy the situation. Only one problem with these examples: those people who are crying out to stop this are actually speaking out against free speech, not for it. In essence, they want people who agree with them to be able to say anything, and the rest of us to not be allowed to respond.

Think about it. These examples are not about the government stifling free speech. These are private citizens making decisions for their own businesses or personal lives. They want to use their own power and voice to make a statement. They are not asking for laws against Liberals, or taking people to court. They are saying, in their places of business, which they own, they will promote their own agenda.

Isn't this exactly what free speech is supposed to be? Marilyn Manson can sing about whatever he wants, but to force me to let him play at my place of business is a tremendous abridgement of my freedom of speech. I have the right to make a statement by refusing to allow him access to my private property. Just like he has the right to refuse to play at my place of business for whatever reason he can think of, I have the right to refuse to allow him to play.

To force the music of the Dixie Chicks on people who do not want to listen to it is ridiculous. If the Country fans who listen to Country radio do not want to listen to them, then Country radio stations would be stupid to not pull the songs off the rotation. As far as burning CDs, I thought that when I bought something I owned it, and if I want to burn my property, then why should the ACLU care? They are all for the right to burn the flag, but I guess that I should be legally forced to keep and regularly listen to a CD I no longer want.

And if the ACLU has a problem with all of this, then why aren’t they fighting to allow abortion protesters to hold their protests in the lobby of Planned Parenthood?

The idea that free speech should only be available to Liberals or rich people is offensive, but this is apparently what the Left wants. Marilyn Manson can say anything that comes into his mind, but not the managers of Six Flags. Dixie Chicks should be able to speak without expecting consequences, and we should have to listen to them on the radio and buy their CDs, no matter what we think of it. Tim Robbins should have the right to work on whatever film he wants to, despite what either the fans or producers desire. When a talk show host in Houston wants to speak against Bill Mahar, they say it’s stifling Mahar’s freedom of speech. Mahar, with millions of people watching his show, has the right to say whatever he will, but the regular people who are calling his advertisers apparently do not.

Despite what the ACLU thinks, entertainers are not the only ones with something to say. And even when those people speak, we are not Constitutionally required to listen or like it. That is not in the First Amendment.

Seriously, can we get some perspective on that First Amendment? This is how it reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law . . ." For those who don’t understand the simple statement, that means that the First Amendment protects people from being censored by the government, not private citizens. The Amendment was expanded by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again, we are speaking of government here, not people. Not businesses. Even in this expansion of free speech, we are only protected against restraint from the state. Did we hear this fact from the ACLU, the Dixie Chicks, or Boston Legal? Of course not.

We are only told about how Liberals are having their rights abridged where no right exists.

We have the right to speak, and that means everyone. I do not have to promote the speech of others when I do not wish to promote it. That is part of free speech also. If we, as a society, decide that we must use our own homes and businesses as a soap box of others, then we have lost our right of expression.

This is supposed to be what the ACLU is fighting against.

* Nuzum, Eric and the ACLU. "Brief Timeline on Censored Music." September 26, 2005. http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16512&c=83

Have a comment about this article or one of the others in this month's issue? Use our Respondere page to write to our editors.