June 23, 2017 at 4:04 p.m.
An American trademark: Free speech
An American trademark: Free speech
The attack on free speech by the Left has been going on for years, of course. It started decades ago with the banning of displays of the Ten Commandments in classrooms and courthouses, and the banishing of manger scenes from the public square.
The assault on freedom of expression reached its peak during the Obama years. For example, the administration proposed to have the IRS shut down conservative advocacy groups, but had to back off because of the uproars their proposed rules caused.
During those same years, Democratic attorneys general wanted to prosecute corporate executives who didn't buy their views on global warming. That's right, Democrats wanted people criminally charged for having deviant political thoughts.
Under Obama, too, the Federal Election Commission tried to regulate political speech on the Internet, and, oh yeah, let's not forget Obama's pursuit of whistleblowers and his attempts to avoid accountability.
Here's how the Committee to Protect Journalists put it:
"U.S. President Barack Obama came into office pledging open government, but he has fallen short of his promise. Journalists and transparency advocates say the White House curbs routine disclosure of information and deploys its own media to evade scrutiny by the press. Aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information and broad electronic surveillance programs deter government sources from speaking to journalists."
In recent years, the march against liberty has taken an even darker turn, as disdain for the First Amendment has taken root among many millennials. College campuses have become ground zero as universities establish safe spaces where free speech isn't allowed, and speakers are prevented from setting foot on campuses because students are afraid of what they have to say.
Anything said or written that the liberty-haters hate is labeled, ironically, hate speech, and, because hate speech is so, well, hateful, our new generation of book burners has its sights set on the First Amendment itself.
The millennial generation can perhaps be forgiven for its views, given how they've been raised - indoctrinated in government-run schools, coddled by helicopter parents, coddled now by spineless university administrators, and encouraged by the Left itself in its ongoing campaign to end free speech.
The Left used to deny that it was anti-free speech. At least it did so until recently, when former Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean let the cat out of the bag in a telling tweet: "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment."
Yikes! Dean was wrong. The First Amendment does protect hate speech, and so his tweet was more wishful thinking, and a plan for the future, rather than reflective of today's reality.
This week, as we report, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced that protection by unanimously striking down a federal law refusing trademark registration for speech that disparages people or national symbols or institutions.
In other words, though the land of trademarks is hardly sexy territory, the court moved to protect hate speech within its realm. As the decision's author, justice Samuel Alito, wrote: "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate.'"
As we reported, the last words were part of a dissent by legendary justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote: "(I)f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."
This week's Supreme Court decision is significant for at least three reasons.
First, trademarks might seem a backwater area, but, as the court observed, the language of trademarks penetrates every aspect of our daily lives: "These marks make up part of the expression of everyday life, as with the names of entertainment groups, broadcast networks, designer clothing, newspapers, automobiles, candy bars, toys, and so on. Nonprofit organizations - ranging from medical-research charities and other humanitarian causes to political advocacy groups - also have trademarks, which they use to compete in a real economic sense for funding and other resources as they seek to persuade others to join their cause."
The censorship of trademark language is thus censorship of everyday language, and it is a key to unlocking the door to complete government control of speech.
Second, the decision is notable for its unanimity. These days the Supreme Court is as polarized politically as the rest of America, as a raft of split decisions indicates. That liberal and conservative justices could come together to recognize and protect this valuable right is an indication both of its importance and of the chances we have to defend the First Amendment.
Finally, the court once again articulated the very reason we need to protect hate speech.
To young people who cannot comprehend why anyone would want to protect the right to speak offensively, it's a ludicrous concept. To them, what constitutes hate speech is so black-and-white and obvious that banning it should be a no-brainer.
But these young people do not know their history. These young people have yet to learn that to ban hate speech, one must define hate speech. They have yet to learn that those in power are the ones who define hate speech, and that that defined hate speech might not comport with their ideas of hate speech.
It could be the speech of today's young people and their own beliefs that are targeted.
These young people would probably be shocked to find out that views challenging Aryan racial superiority were considered hate speech and banned in Nazi Germany.
In scenes reminiscent of college campuses today, the censors raged. Here's how the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum puts it: "During the spring of 1933, Nazi student organizations, professors, and librarians made up long lists of books they thought should not be read by Germans. Then, on the night of May 10, 1933, Nazis raided libraries and bookstores across Germany. They marched by torchlight in nighttime parades, sang chants, and threw books into huge bonfires. On that night more than 25,000 books were burned. Some were works of Jewish writers, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Most of the books were by non-Jewish writers, including such famous Americans as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own and therefore not to be read."
What the Nazis viewed as hate speech, today's millennials would not, but the tables can easily be turned, and that is why the same tactics against today's so-called hate speech cannot be tolerated.
It's why censorship in any form cannot be tolerated.
It is why hate speech must always be protected, and it is why this week's Supreme Court decision was important.
Free speech - it's a fundamentally unique American trademark that helps to make us who we are.
Comments:
You must login to comment.