“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.”
This single sentence imposes strong restrictions on the ability of a democratic government to faithfully represent the desires of the citizens it represents. After all, who among us has not, at some point, wanted to silence the speaker of opinions or views we regard as ill-informed, irresponsible or wicked, or wished that a newspaper could be prevented from printing the articles of an opinion columnist we disagree with? Indeed, American history is full of examples of groups of citizens and elected officials failing to live up to the obligations laid down in a single sentence of only 45 words. Furthermore, the way in which the amendment is interpreted and applied has undergone massive transformations since its adoption. The First Amendment and the freedom of speech have not always been objects of reverence in the American political process.
But at least we as American citizens are committed to the First Amendment in principle, even if we disagree over its meaning and application occasionally, and can look forward to being able to speak, read, assemble and worship freely so long as we acknowledge that others can as well. Right?
Perhaps not, according to the results of study released Monday by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the University of Connecticut. Of more than 100,000 high school students polled over two years, more than a third believed that the First Amendment goes “too far” in guaranteeing the freedoms listed above. About half believed that newspapers should be required to secure government approval before printing, and students were 14 percent less likely than their teachers to believe that people should be allowed to express unpopular views. Half of the students incorrectly believed that the U.S. government is able to censor the Internet, and more than two-thirds believed, equally incorrectly, that it is illegal to burn the U.S. flag. Three-fourths said that they either had no opinions about the First Amendment or that they rarely thought about it.
The study has provoked a flurry of fingerpointing in the media, with some condemning schools for failing to adequately educate students about the Constitution and others complaining about student apathy. It seems unfair to pin the blame solely on either group. In an era of declining public commitment to education, it is hardly surprising that student journalism programs in high schools — perhaps the best environment for students to learn something meaningful about the First Amendment — are often regarded as frivolities by school districts desperate to stay out of the red. However, it is simply unacceptable that students should have, at best, a blasé attitude about basic freedoms.
If there’s anywhere our fingers should be pointed, it’s squarely at ourselves. While it is disturbing enough to discover that many students — who are presumably being taught to become active citizens in American democracy — regard the First Amendment with disinterest or even hostility, it is unlikely that other groups in our society feel that much differently than they do. The right of anybody to speak their own mind on a topic of their own choosing is a proposition that many people become uncomfortable with as soon as they realize it means that others will be able to say things they regard as disgusting, immoral or subversive. According to the Knight Foundation study, administrators and educators do not regard instruction in the First Amendment as a “high priority.” Inevitably, any serious classroom discussion of the freedom of speech will expose students to controversial topics. If the willingness of parents and pressure groups across the country to lean on schools to drop controversial subjects like sex education and evolution is any indication, the First Amendment is a hornet’s nest school districts would rather steer clear of.
To commit oneself to supporting free speech is an act of moral courage, one in which we will all falter at times. To back away from that commitment, however, is to allow the foundations of participatory democracy to collapse. One may well doubt whether the international terrorist networks against which President Bush says we are engaged in a “war on terror” direct their malevolence at us simply because “they hate our freedoms,” but there is no doubt that the vision of an ideal society endorsed by members of al-Qaeda does not involve citizens enjoying any kind of freedom of thought or expression. What, then, will be the fate of our own society if future voters and leaders do not adequately learn precisely those principles that make us, in any meaningful sense of the word, free?
Rob Hunter ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and philosophy.
