Editorials to examine Constitution's Bill of Rights

Editor's note: Beginning with this edition, the Frontiersman will use the Friday editorial space to examine some of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. We will work in numerical order, though some of the amendments will not be covered. We invite our readers to send us their views and comments on the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I: 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.

It's no accident that the First Amendment covers several issues that are the defining aspects of American democracy. As is the case with many of the first 10 amendments, the language does leave a fair amount of room for interpretation. Also implicit in every amendment is the notion that each individual right extends only to point at which it collides with the rights of another. Though this amendment addresses religion and expression, we'll assume that they were combined because the right guaranteed by the First Amendment is the right to express one's beliefs, be they spiritual, political or otherwise.

The ability to freely express one's views is essential to a healthy democracy. If the goal of democracy is to respond to the will and the needs of the people, that response can only be evoked by the free voice of the governed. The difficulty arises when we are forced to decide between what speech is helpful and productive and what speech is damaging and disruptive to positive change. In truth, it is impossible to make that judgment without the benefit of hindsight.

Many people were frightened and outraged by the Boston Tea Party -- in fact some colonists believed the act was treasonous -- and yet we now think of it as heroic. Many voices were raised in protest to the Vietnam War. Some of those protests were disruptive and divisive. In hindsight, most Americans agree that the war was a mistake, but there are still strong emotions about the different approaches to dissent. If we've learned anything from that experience, we've learned that free expression is nearly impossible to quantify. We know that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not acceptable, but we can't refine the definition of productive speech much beyond that.

One of our frustrations with free speech, especially now that electronic media have essentially handed a microphone to every American, is that it is messy. Americans have traditionally been a conciliatory people, much preferring to compromise rather than stagnate. On the most difficult issues, free speech exposes what seem to be irreconcilable differences. The discussion becomes rhetorical, heated, and sometimes violent. The temptation is to blame the loudest voices for causing division, and to attempt to silence them.

As the war in Afghanistan, and later the one in Iraq, loomed, some Americans chose to speak in opposition to the pre-emptive use of force. Others accused them of lacking in patriotism or of being cowardly. It would have been more productive -- and more American -- to debate the protesters on the issue rather than to question their patriotism. The use of any pressure, even peer pressure, in an attempt to quell free speech is more damaging to democracy than dissent. The moment we silence an unpopular voice, we diminish every voice that does not agree with the status quo. The moment we accomplish that, we cease to be a free people.

Free speech creates a lot of noise. It guarantees disagreements between friends and neighbors. It assumes that government is not guaranteed to be perfect, but that it can only be improved by the voice of the governed. It sometimes makes us uncomfortable, and it often means the country will take a direction of which we personally disapprove. It means that we will have to come to grips with the fact that others do not share our views. Free speech also guarantees that we will never have to suffer silently at the hands of distant bureaucracy. We are prevented from shouting our dissent only by the limit of our own convictions and the depth of our courage.