Who’s on First?

Free speech . . . to a point?

THERE are times when it’s wise to tip-toe quietly by a poll you might see on one of the 24/7 Internet sites. Especially when you dig just a little—scratch, actually—and see the polling outfit advertises its frugality. Who knows if this is one of those “Internet polls” which only asks questions of those who might visit pineapple-on-pizza websites on their cell phones? Can the numbers be a reflection of the actual public?

Those were our thoughts—well, some of our thoughts—last week when we noticed a few off-brand news outfits pushing this poll about the First Amendment. Apparently the story goes like this:

More than half of all Americans, according to this poll, say the First Amendment “goes too far” in allowing hate speech. And 51 percent say it should be “updated” to reflect the “cultural norms” of today.

Nearly half said that hate speech should be against the law. More than six in 10 say they’d restrict free speech in some way. And 54 percent of millennials say jail time should come for those who offend.

Nearly 60 percent of those polled agree with this statement: “Government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations that publish content that is biased, inflammatory or false.”

Whew.

We didn’t see this poll, or the story about it, on the wire. Nor on CNN’s website or Fox News or hear about it on NPR. And we don’t know if the poll included landlines—or if readers chose it, instead of the other way around. So let’s not hyperventilate just yet. But for the sake of argument, and editorial grist, let’s imagine for a minute that the poll is close.

That would suggest a lot of folks, at least of those who participated in the survey, need a refresher course in America 101.

As far as “updating” the U.S. Constitution, that’s a fair point. The founding document sometimes needs just that. And there’s a way to do it. It’s called the amendment process. For folks who’d like to see the First Amendment—or any part of the Constitution—changed, they only need to get two-thirds of both houses of Congress to approve, or call constitutional conventions of twothirds of the state legislatures. Then 38 of the 50 states need to ratify the idea. Presto!

You can imagine how often that’s happened since 1787. Actually, you don’t need to imagine. For there’s a number. The last Amendment was No. 27. That’s the easy part.

For when laws are passed to “update” the First Amendment to reflect “cultural norms” of today, whose cultural norms are we talking about? A liberal millennial from the eastern shore? Or a conservative 60-something church deacon from Arkadelphia? Who’s to say?

That’s always been the fundamental problem with hate speech: how to define it. Or rather, who gets to define it. If we could all agree, every one of us, on every subject, that’d make things simple. Inhuman, but simple. Because one person’s hate speech is another’s defense of the Pro Life movement. Or another’s defense of gay marriage. Or the NRA. Or of the ACLU.

Or as a jurist and thinker named Oliver Wendell Holmes once put it: “… if 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.’’ We couldn’t make that point better. So we won’t try.

AS FOR the poll’s majority, at least those who say the government should be able to take action against biased newspapers, wherefore shall we begin?

Should we explain that parts of the paper should be biased? Such as this part. Even television stations broadcast editorials every now and then, although TV editorials are becoming as rare as good print ones. But that’s the nature of commentary: It should be biased.

For heaven and H.L. Mencken’s sake, some of us think the big problem with editorial writing in this country is that so much of it is unbiased. Is there anything more boring than news analysis masquerading as commentary? Give us a rip-roaring, foaming, snot-slinging liberal column over a sleepy conservative one any day! Even should we disagree, we’d still read.

Also, government would be a bad moderator when determining what is biased. One person’s prejudice would be another’s Deep Explanation and Evaluation. We’ve often said that bad information in the media can be overcome with better information in the media. Not censorship. (This applies to “dark money” ads in political campaigns, too.) Besides, do we really want a Department of Media working for the feds in Washington? Spare us.

There’s been much talk over the last several years about what’s offensive, or what’s hateful. But one must remember, it’s all entirely subjective. Instead of hushing up all the various voices in America, or clamping them in jail, we’d suggest joining the fray. It’s the American way. And beats all the other ways— by far.

Remember: United we rant. It’s what we do in a free country.