These days we are facing a challenge to one of our most sacred Bill of Rights freedoms, i.e., the freedom of speech. Mob rule and the sacrosanct procedure of being “politically correct” seem to be overtaking this American freedom cornerstone. Will we, Americans tolerate speech that challenges our basic worldviews? Will we allow open debate on issues that we consider unassailable? Will we allow promotion in the public square of subjects such as racism, sexism, homosexuality, creationism, anti-Americanism, Christian theology, and anti-Islamic protests?
It is common belief that some of the above subjects are beyond the pale of acceptable public discourse, and they should be suppressed. But…just how far should our society go in suppressing these disturbing subjects?
An essential freedom-of-speech paradigm was established in 1949 by the Supreme Court in Terminiello v. Chicago. In that case a vitriolic, racist speaker spoke to an auditorium packed with supporters. Outside the auditorium was what was described as “a surging, howling mob hurling epithets’ at those who would enter.” The police blamed the mob’s action on the speaker, Arthur Terminiello, a Catholic priest under suspension by his bishop. He was convicted of disturbing the peace and fined.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed the conviction and ruled that Terminiello’s speech was protected by the First Amendment. The court said that the police, instead of taking action against the speaker should have protected him and controlled the crowd, including making arrests if necessary.
University of Chicago law professor Harry Kalven Jr. would later coin the term “heckler’s veto” to describe what would have happened had the court decided otherwise. First Amendment rights could be “vetoed” by others who create a public disturbance that forces the silencing of the speaker. I wonder…do we exercise a “heckler’s veto” these days against speech that we consider offensive or unacceptable to our predetermined viewpoint?
I do not think there is any question about subjects such as slavery and racism, as in the Terminiello decision; those are subjects that society does not have to tolerate; but nevertheless, the Terminiello decision indicated that it is not acceptable in America to shout down a dissenting opinion.
I would speak, specifically, about
speech aimed at silencing opposition to one of society’s sacred cows—the
evolution argument. Ever since the mid-1990s general opinion in the scientific
community has deemed it stupid and irrational to even question the “fact” of
evolution. Everyone who attempts to do that is considered irrational, because
the question has been finally settled in the minds of scientists and those in
institutions of higher learning. Even the population, as a whole, considers the
question solved, i.e., the scientific methods have answered the question once
and for all. These scientific methods are often referred to as methodological
naturalism.
Even though methodological naturalism
is widely accepted as a way of getting at some forms of truth, its principles,
themselves, have not been proven conclusive in all kinds of truth
determinations. Specifically, methodological naturalism has not been able to
disprove the existence of a Creator God. Other questions unanswered by
scientific methods are, these: Does science prove naturalism, or does it merely
assume it? Has the metaphysical basis for traditional biblical morality been
destroyed by scientific discoveries? The media and the court systems of America are busy shutting the doors on anyone who would promote ideas of faith and religious certainty into academic and public discourse. Teachers are prohibited from entering their religious beliefs into their classrooms. The subject seems to be closed. I would posit that this kind of prohibition is a form of “heckler veto” of discordant and controversial idea sharing; and, as such, it represents an erosion of freedom of speech.
More on this subject can be found in Phillip E. Johnson’s book, Reason In The Balance.
Posts
