The Freedom To Think Like An Ignorant Slob

There are many ways to tell someone to shut up. Consider my hypothetical examples of a hypothetical radio program, Big Talk AM:

The host tells a caller to shut up.

The host hangs up on a caller whose views he dislikes.

The host hangs up on a caller who bores him.

The host refuses to take a call from a man who wants to talk about the civil liberties.

An association of bloggers promotes an effective boycott of Big Talk.

An association of bloggers promotes an effective boycott of commercial sponsors of Big Talk.

The sponsors of Big Talk tell the radio station to stop talking about civil liberties or lose their sponsorship.

A woman who doesn’t like what the Big Talk host says invades the studio and shoots him dead.

Now which of these examples implicates Constitutional, First-Amendment freedom of speech? Trick question. The correct answer is, none. Why is that? These examples don’t implicate First-Amendment rights, because the First Amendment does not protect you from being told to shut up or even from being made to shut up, except in special circumstances.

The special circumstances are clearly stated in the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law … 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.” There you go. Any laws being passed or enforced in my examples? No. In other words, any state action involved? No. Therefore, no infringement of free-speech rights.

The popular image of the “marketplace of ideas” is apt. You can bring your ideas to the marketplace and find no takers. You can even bring your ideas to the marketplace and get pummeled to death. That would be a crime but not an infringement of the First Amendment, unless the pummeler were a cop or a congressman.

That seems simple to me. But the simple fact that the Bill of Rights, and much else in our Constitution, limits government powers is lost on the ignorant slobs who now appear to constitute a majority of the polity. Why do so few Americans know this? It’s basic and important information about our government. It's not some kind of legal technicality; the entire Bill of Rights is about limiting government powers, not about limiting private powers or corporate powers. And the Bill of Rights is, or was, an important part of the American identity. As the authoritative Wikipedia puts it, “The Bill of Rights plays a central role in American law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation.”

A USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-23-free-speech-battles_x.htm) reports that hundreds of blogging activists promoted a boycott of Disney-owned radio station, KSFO-AM in San Francisco, because the hosts made racist comments. A Disney company sued one of the bloggers for copyright violations. Both sides claimed that their speech rights were being attacked and the reporter seemed to agree, calling it a "First Amendment flap." The First Amendment has nothing to do with it.

Ignorance on this topic goes far and wide. How far? Again and again, I hear on the radio and read in the press that the (presumably and sometimes explicitly Constitutional) right to free speech should protect us from various forms of speech itself. You can't hang up on me or tell me to shut up, or refuse to take my call, or strongly disagree with me, or tell me I'm an idiot for thinking what I think, or boycott the Dixie Chicks, or withdraw your sponsorship, because that would infringe somebody's right to free speech. I think that these sloppy arguments are sneaking up on the ultimate idiocy: the assertion that to protect the victims of these "infringements", well, there ought to be a law.

Do I have to draw you a picture?