First Things First

You don't have to know a lot about me to know that I would put down my life for the First Amendment. It is the right I care the most about; the one that makes me feel like there will always be hope in America, no matter how bleak the political landscape may seem. Unfortunately, my favorite human freedom has been seeing a lot of press in the past few month -- and not the good kind.

This is mostly because people have been doing stupid things. For the most part, stupidity is the outlying reason that we think about the implications of the First Amendment. Folks at the Wesboro Baptist Church triggered our national gag reflex when they protested outside soldier's funerals alleging, among other ridiculous ideas, that war is God's punishment for all things liberal (i.e.: "sins"). But of course the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church. Horrified as we were, Nazis set that precedent up in 1977 when they upheld the right to march in Skokie, Illinois -- a town of mostly Holocaust survivors. 

Free speech often makes us feel sick. It makes us angry, uncomfortable, and horrified. And that is exactly the quality which makes it so valuable.

Patricia J. Williams, my personal hero in many ways, wrote a wonderful piece about the Westboro Baptist Church situation in March. She aptly reminds us:

[T]he essence of the First Amendment is not about individual hurt feelings: it is about ensuring public debate. And public debate requires first, a public space that remains orderly, free of violence — hence much jurisprudential grappling with the putative difference between speech and conduct, or between the merely provocative statements and “fighting words.”

I have a difficult time believing change would happen at all if we lacked this basic human freedom. How would we talk about anything? How would we find out what gnawed at our collective hunger for justice and peace?

The NPR podcast On The Media aired a wonderful episode on the implications of the First Amendment this week, detailing some of the more controversial cases of freedom of speech being upheld even in times of war. The first story is about whether freedom of speech should be protected if peoples' lives are at risk because of it. The example given was Florida Pastor Terry Jones having the license to set fire to a Quran last month, igniting rage and attack -- sometimes to the death -- against American forces in Afghanistan. Lindsay Graham reflected, "You know, I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war."

Still, though, the slippery slope comes into question quickly. Geoffery Slope explains:

Let's suppose that we were to hold that the reverend could be punished because the speech led to the death of individuals in Afghanistan. And now let's suppose that instead of that, that the City of New York prohibits the construction of a mosque near the site of, of 9/11, and radical Islamicists are furious at the discrimination against Islam and they go out and they kill people, in protest. Does that mean that we have to allow the mosque?

Today's New York Times has a story which I cannot see as anything other than a First Amendment Rights abuse waiting to happen. In Iowa and other states, agriculture industries are looking to ban photographs and videos that depict their facilities in unflattering lights:

A bill before the Iowa legislature would make it a crime to produce, distribute or possess photos and video taken without permission at an agricultural facility. It would also criminalize lying on an application to work at an agriculture facility “with an intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner.”

In other words, folks in Iowa are getting nervous about footage of their animal abuses going public, in case they lose money over it. 

As an animal rights activist, part of me is invigorated that the ethics of factory farming are finally coming into question. If factory owners are worried enough to try to get legislation passed in their favor, there must be some media attention driving the bill.

Mostly, though, I am shocked that the First Amendment isn't a more major part of this conversation. If you take pictures of abused animals while undercover as a meatpacker, it's appropriate for you to lose your job. It is a blatant violation of your First Amendment rights to be sent to jail for it. 

Whistle-blowing is annoying only when you are doing something wrong (or when the whistle-blower deliberately edits the footage of his scandal to prove a dishonest point). But we have to trust the people of the United States enough to figure out for themselves what is truth and what is fiction.

Ultimately, that's what makes this Amendment so exceptional: it gives people the unique ability to think for themselves.