Look at the space at the top of this editorial page, and there you will see a quotation. It might be something new, but most often in the recent past it has been one of the following:

”Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself’ ‘- Sir Salman Rushdie.’

”I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’ ‘- Voltaire.’

These are both superb quotes. Rushdie’s succinctly conveys the importance of free speech in society, while Voltaire’s reminds us that it is the opinions that we abhor the most that demand our defense most fervently. However, there is one quote above all that most eloquently expresses the place of import held by free expression in America:

‘Congress shall make no law’hellip;abridging the freedom of speech.’

Thus does the First Amendment to the Constitution enshrine our fundamental right to express ourselves. Second only to religious freedom, the framers specifically enjoined the government from taking any action that might limit free speech. Such was their belief in its importance.

Yet the meaning of these seemingly simple words was clouded from the beginning ‘- at their ratification in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. Initially, they were thought to prevent only ‘prior restraint,’ meaning that the government could not stop you from speaking out, but could still prosecute you afterwards. Through over 200 years of judicial review, we have greatly expanded that ideal of freedom, and University of Massachusetts political science professor John Brigham, among others, has noted how our struggles have created a ‘free speech tradition’ in our society.

Whether it be the aforementioned idea of ‘prior restraint,’ or Oliver Wendell Holmes’ ‘falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic‘ test for restricting speech in cases of ‘clear and present danger,’ our conception of what constitutes free expression has broadened dramatically since our country’s infancy. And this effort to reconcile free speech with our ever-advancing culture continues in the courts, and in our lives, to this day.

But there are signs that the hard-fought gains of freedom are in jeopardy, and perhaps some have already been surrendered without complaint. For example, justified by the precepts of ‘political correctness,’ and in the guise of things such as campus ‘speech codes,’ we have all been witness to the erosion of free speech.

Whether or not you believe these accommodations to ‘sensitivity’ are justified, there is no denying they constitute a partial surrender of our rights. I submit that is how tyranny advances ‘- in tiny steps that seem so innocuous that nobody bothers to object. But next thing you know, you are being hauled into court for political dissent.

Perhaps the high-water mark was the 1977 Skokie case. When the Nazi Party wanted to march through Skokie, Ill., the large number of Holocaust survivors who lived there objected. The Illinois Supreme Court, after being ordered to hear the case by the U.S. Supreme Court, allowed the Nazis to march. While the Illinois court empathetically allowed the town to ban displays of the swastika, the Nazis’ right to express themselves outweighed the Holocaust survivors’ desire not be reminded of their ordeal. Here we see the truth of Voltaire’s aphorism, that it is the ideas that we disagree with most strenuously that require the most vigilant protection.

Which brings me to the Fairness Doctrine. If you honestly think that the recent push for something resembling the Fairness Doctrine is not driven by some Democrat’s desire to silence their political critics, then you are denying reality, and it only remains to determine whether you are doing so intentionally. Just last week, a far-left pundit suggested on Larry King Live that a certain prominent critic of the Democrats should be brought up on charges for treason. She later tried to make a joke of it, but anyone who has read the transcript knows that she was serious before she was kidding.

Prosecuting political dissenters for treason? Are you bleeping kidding me?

To be sure, President Obama has stated that he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated. However, many other Democrats, including Bill Clinton, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and our own Senator John Kerry have expressed their desire for a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

Yet, even more frightening is the fact that so large a segment of the American people would accept limits on free speech in the guise of ‘fairness.’ In August of 2008, a poll indicated that 47 percent of the electorate would support something like the Fairness Doctrine, while only 39 percent opposed it. It
is sad to see such clear evidence of how far we have fallen from the days of Skokie.

If you don’t like Rush Limbaugh just do what I do when I see Keith Olbermann, and change the channel. The alternative is to let the government decide who we are forced to listen to.

The Fairness Doctrine must not be allowed to return, no matter what friendly language the politicians might use to define it.

‘Congress shall make no law’hellip;abridging the freedom of speech.’

Ben Rudnick is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].