Fear Breeds Repression

Still a little down after the election last week? Well, let's get over it, shall we? We've got some work to do, people! In that spirit, please read the following rationale for the First Amendment from Justice Brandeis writing in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) (emphasis added):

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Brandeis was concurring here w/a majority opinion that has since been overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). However, Brandenburg implicitly endorsed Brandeis' opinion, so it's still more or less “good dicta,” and hey, we'll work for that, right? So here's to speaking up, and speaking out! Here's to Sonnets for Democracy! And here's hope “those who won our independence” were right, that “the power of reason as applied through public discussion” will be enough to overcome the tyranny of a certain majority that reared its ugly head one fateful day in November, 2004. The Counter Inaugural might be a good place to begin.

Posted 03:48 PM | Comments (2) | election 2004