By Jackson Swearer
A Certain Point of View
The Constitution has fascinated me since I was in high school. I’m no constitutional scholar, but I have been a student of politics, history, and philosophy. I believe it is important to reflect on how our values play out in everyday life.
I have read with interest as the First Amendment has been in the news recently—not just national headlines, either. A few local stories relate to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
Here is the full text of the First Amendment for reference:
“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.”
The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law,” but these rights extend to all levels of government, and they are not absolute. Speech can be restricted to preserve other rights.
The struggle to balance competing interests fairly in politics and society is the subject of many old and new debates. I have been reflecting on how these local stories shed light on those challenges.
Freedom of assembly has come front and center in discussions about Avenue A park in Hutchinson. I appreciated that the chief of police spoke about protecting the rights of individuals to be in the park if they are not doing anything illegal. Adjacent property owners raised some valid concerns about safety and the need to enforce other laws. Striking a balance between these interests that abides by our constitution is not easy, but local officials are doing their best to do so.
In a very different story about another park, last week, a large group exercised both their rights of assembly and their right to free exercise of religion, holding a vigil in George Pyle Park. I will steer clear of wading into the related national discussion, but I do note the positive impact of people gathering peacefully to express their feelings and ideas.
Every Saturday, another group stands in protest at the corner of 17th and Main. Most are holding signs expressing their complaints about the current federal administration. Their views may offend some, but their rights to assemble and petition the Government are well protected.
Finally, a much smaller group was protesting recently outside of Hutchinson High School. The district worked to address concerns through means that did not abridge the constitutional rights of the protestors. One parent told the Tribune that they didn’t think the district did enough to protect students, highlighting a common conflict related to speech freedoms.
Those who find certain kinds of speech offensive or otherwise dangerous frequently take steps to remove the speech they dislike. This desire to address speech with which we disagree can be taken too far. When extreme views clash, our social norms can sometimes break down.
Part of the promise of America is that we can resolve our differences through open discussion and debate. Political violence is never an acceptable solution. We should view outbursts of political violence as isolated and extreme, and universally reject them.
But violence is not the only threat to the First Amendment. There are other, less severe ways that people can be silenced. We have a culture where it is common to “cancel” people or groups who express ideas that do not align with our views.
I’ll admit that I have caught myself doing this—a politician, writer or artist will make a statement that I disagree with, and I will want to speak out against both those ideas and the person stating them. But when I am at my best, I can separate the ideas from the individual and stay open to points of view with which I disagree.
Consumers are not bound by the First Amendment as the Government is, but that does not make cancel culture right. If certain people or ideas aren’t what I want to hear, there is plenty of other content to consume. I do not need to try to tell other people what they can and cannot listen to or watch.
The truth is that our culture benefits from having different voices expressing competing ideas. I try to take in multiple perspectives on issues and avoid content that is just rage-bait. I believe everyone should try to engage with at least some of the “other side” when they can, so that they are aware and informed.
We often need to strike a balance between competing ideas and interests in the public sphere. Reasonable people are going to disagree. Even unreasonable people deserve to be heard, in large part because attempting to silence people is so dangerous to the health of our democracy.
The First Amendment is foundational to the functioning of our constitutional republic. As we move forward, we need to fiercely protect the free exchange of ideas. That might mean we have to risk being offended from time to time to search for the truth.
Jackson Swearer is the Publisher and Managing Editor of The Hutchinson Tribune. He can be reached at jackson@hutchtribune.com.