Sedition vs. Free Speech
Reader comment on item: Hizb Ut-Tahrir: Shariah Takes Precedence over U.S. Constitution
in response to reader comment: SEDITION

Submitted by Matt Vititoe, Jul 20, 2009 15:29

Our government - if it upholds our Constitutional principles - must strike a tough balance between prosecuting seditious acts and protecting our Right of Free Speech. What is worse, listening to others talk about getting rid of our Constitution or not being able to disagree with the government and express it freely?

It's a tough issue. Even our Founding Fathers disagreed as to how or whether to regulate speech. The first Alien and Sedition Acts were enacted shortly after the U.S. became a nation. In 1798, President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law, but just 3 years later, Thomas Jefferson let them expire under his presidency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition. I wonder why?

Not all speech is protected, yet neither is every protest against governmental policy sedition (See Clear and Present Danger test in Schenk v. US, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger). We have a social responsibility to promote free speech, even when it includes speech or ideas that we find offensive or shocking. (See Lee Bolinger, Free Speech and Tolerance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech) Sometimes something will shock and offend us, but we know in the back of our minds that it will not have to endure it for long. Perhaps it's a bad idea, or just someone shooting off at the mouth. We can choose to ignore those things or better yet to focus on those things that really matter in our lives. This personal regulation - if you want to call it that - is perhaps more effective because it reflects personal choice.

If we forgo personal regulation and leave it up to the government, the government might not always have our best interests at heart. It might, for example, choose to limit free speech in an effort to protect the citizenry from threats both near and abroad like it did when it tried to regulate speech related to communism, pornography, and terrorism. Just look at how "anti-terrorism" laws, which started out to protect us from threats abroad like fundamentalist Islam, have gradually grown to include many other acts which bear no real resemblence to terrorism.

Once we neglect our collective social responsibility to protect and promote free speech in favor of governmental regulation of speech, where do we draw the line? Perhaps more importantly, if we do want to draw a line...if we do feel that the government has overstepped its bounds...how do we voice our disfavor if we cannot speak out against the very government we created?

I respectfully submit this for your thoughts.

Sincerely,

Matt Vititoe

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death yoru right to say it. - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Note: IPT will moderate reader comments. We reserve the right to edit or remove any comment we determine to be inappropriate. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that include swearing, name calling, or offensive language involving race, religion or ethnicity. All comments must include an email address for verification.