Over the last several years I have published on this blog (fromanativeson.com) several articles written by my friend, John Ruane, and I am very pleased to present with this post another one, entitled The Importance of Freedom of Speech. Long a student of history and philosophy, John holds a bachelor’s degree from Florida State University and a Master’s degree in Modern European History from the University of South Florida. In this article he expresses his concern that the importance of freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, is not well understood in our current society, and is gradually eroding in the face of insistence we conform to ideas without logical debate. The points John makes are important, and I want to ensure as wide a distribution as possible, so please share this article with your friends. As for John, he is currently 69 years old, married and lives in Clearwater, Florida. He also holds the unique distinction of having seen his favorite rock group, the Rolling Stones, perform live 16 times across the last 50 years. With all that understood, here is “The Importance of Freedom of Speech,” by John Ruane. MA  

_________________________

 I consider myself an old-fashion, Bobby Kennedy-Walter Lippmann[1] type liberal. I’m not unsympathetic to rational conservative demands, but today what passes for conservative is not really traditional conservatism. My concern is that what passes as liberals these days are not the traditional liberals either.

Over the past months I have found myself arguing with some of my liberal friends, who in one aspect or another, are opposed to the First Amendment.[2] Their arguments are based either on expediency, or even simply being opposed to the content of what is said or who is saying it. I’m tired of this fight. These folks simply cannot see the catastrophic consequences when limits are placed on political discussions or discussions of social issues. It always leads to tyranny. Always.

The First Amendment protects the helpless and oppressed, not the status quo. Although it helps the status quo by offering views for improvement.

Late last night I “unjoined” a liberal Facebook group after they deleted all my posts, even the ones defending freedom of speech. The irony isn’t lost on that one. I had respected these folks, but I realized they were more concerned with conformity to ideas some of them expressed, rather than getting at the truth of things.

As for cancel culture, that is just liberal McCarthyism.[3] Trumpism, popularism, and even fascism, are certainly serious threats, but, so long as there is freedom of speech, we hopefully can ride out any storms.

To me the real danger is the growing attitude that freedom of speech is a privilege for some and not a right for all, and worse, the lack of capacity to understand why freedom of speech is so necessary for civil society.

In his book “The Public Philosophy,” [4]Walter Lippman explains:

“The right to speak freely is one of the necessary means to the attainment of truth. That, and not the subjective pleasure of utterance, is why freedom is a necessity in the good society…Yet when general debate is lacking, freedom of speech does not work as it is meant to work. It has lost the principle which regulates it and justifies it-that is to say, dialectic[5]according to logic and the rules of evidence. If there is no effective debate, the unrestricted right to speak will unloose so many propagandists, procurers, and panderers upon the public that sooner or later in self-defense the people will turn to the censors to protect them.”

The key to any discussions and for any moderators of discussion groups is to maintain a “dialectic according to logic and the rules of evidence,” and not simply conformity to ideas.

Copyright © 2021

by John Ruane

All Rights Reserved

---

[1] Walter Lippmann, (born Sept. 23, 1889, New York City—died Dec. 14, 1974, New York City), was an American newspaper commentator and author who in a 60-year career made himself one of the most widely respected political columnists in the world.  He is famous for being among the first to introduce the term “Cold War” to describe the US vs Soviet Union conflict of the late 1940s, 50s and 60s, for coining the term “stereotype” in the modern psychological meaning, and for critiquing media and democracy in his newspaper column and several books, most notably his 1922 book “Public Opinion.” He is considered one of the most influential journalists of the 20th century, and is often called the “Father of Modern Journalism.” In the late 1940s, in contrast to the Cold War containment strategy of the Soviet Union being adopted by the US at the time, Lippmann became the leading public advocate of the need to respect the Soviet sphere of influence in Europe. He became an informal adviser to several presidents. On September 14, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson presented Lippmann with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, but he later had a rather famous feud with Johnson over his handling of the Vietnam War, of which Lippmann had become highly critical. He won a special Pulitzer Prize for journalism in 1958, as a nationally syndicated columnist, citing “the wisdom, perception and high sense of responsibility with which he has commented for many years on national and international affairs.” Four years later he won the annual Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting, citing “his 1961 interview with Soviet Premier Khrushchev, as illustrative of Lippmann’s long and distinguished contribution to American journalism.” A penetrating student of philosophy, economics and political science since his college days, Lippmann was among the first American publicists to suggest that the mounting crisis in contemporary Western Society was integrally related to the decline of the natural law tradition, which John alludes to here in this article. Lippmann retired from his syndicated column in 1967. He died in New York City of cardiac arrest in 1974.

[2] The First Amendment to the US Constitution states, “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.” The first 10 amendments to the US Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights.

[3] “McCarthyism” refers to an aggressive and vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the US government and other institutions carried out by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the period 1950–54. Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their jobs, although most did not in fact belong to the Communist Party. By extension, a campaign or practice that endorses the use of unfair allegations and investigations is termed “McCarthyism.”

[4] Begun in 1938 and completed in 1955, Walter Lippman’s book The Public Philosophy offers as much a glimpse into the private philosophy of America’s premier journalist of the twentieth century (Lippman) as it does a public philosophy. The basis of Lippmann’s effort is “that there is a deep disorder in our society which comes not from the machinations of our enemies and from the adversaries of the human condition but from within ourselves.” He also provides a special sort of legacy to liberalism in its broadest sense, as the root approach to human existence that could provide civility and accommodation against incivilities and extremism. This work is a masterful defense of the public philosophy as a constitutional tradition, and can be easily read as such today. Lippman’s rationalist conviction that clear-headedness on public matters can be effectively relayed to people is nowhere more evident than in The Public Philosophy.

[5]  Dialectic refers to the art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments.  The word derives from the Greek word dialektikē, meaning “of conversation.” It is used in philosophy, and is closely connected to the ideas of Socrates and Plato is completely logical. Plato’s famous dialogues frequently presented Socrates playing a leading role, and dialogue comes from the Greek roots dia- (“through” or “across”) and -logue (“discourse” or “talk”). Dialect and dialectic come from dialecktos (“conversation” or “dialect”) and ultimately back to the Greek word dialegesthai, meaning “to converse.”