There are few things in the ceremony of life that we can all agree upon. You’d think that freedom of speech would be one of those things. Today, it seems as though we may need to think about this again. Aside from speaking one’s mind in autocratic surroundings, Alexei Navalny’s Russian Woes of the present day, and any European forced to exist under the Nazi Rule of the past as examples, the act of delivering one’s thoughts to others has, in our democratic society, always been protected, although with certain logical restrictions.

A prime example of this is the well-established prohibition against falsely yelling “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater. There is no such proscription however should one, for whatever screwball reason(s) they may have, need to shout “MOVIE” at a crowded fire. And that is the point, isn’t it? So long as your speech does not endanger life or property you are free, or at least should be free, to spout as many thought bubbles from your soap box as you may care to, regardless of the way these bubbles may burst upon the listener. We are, rightfully, taught as children that “Congress shall make no law (emphasis added)...abridging the freedom of speech. And therein lies the rub.

There are those in government at present, and this aspect of present day politics in our democratic state should concern everyone, be we on stage, sitting on whatever side of the aisle or merely observing from the balcony, who would and do attempt to silence those whose bubbles they determine to be an acrid assault on all they hold dear. And yet these very same announcers of the Gospel According To Them are equally guilty of rancor and hostility.

Standing on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court and advising selected Justices to in effect watch their backs, because “...you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you should go forward with these awful decisions” can on the one hand be likened to the kook at the crowded fire, but on the other, because of the incendiary nature of the warning, can also be interpreted as a threat, clear and simple. Only the rule of law prevents the harmful conduct; but not always. Eventhough a careful reading of the words spoken outside the Capitol on January 6, 2021 can also be appreciated as protected speech, the scene that followed was anathema to the rule of law, a blight upon the history of the continuing enterprise of delivering freedom and justice to all, an enterprise which admittedly has had its serious failings.

To be clear, criminal behavior resulting in injury, death and destruction must be dealt with swiftly and decisively, and always within a constitutional framework. Blaming the messenger, Trumped Up or otherwise, does not address the seriousness of the right, the right to freely express oneself, without regard to negative consequences, if such

expressions are spoken peacefully, and in good faith. So too, turning a blind eye to crackpot impudence at the citadel of judcial leadership fits neatly within the present, selective expulsion, or not, from the airwaves of persona non grata, by those who control the media. The ongoing impeachment trial notwithstanding, the bedrock of free speech remains a cherished First Amendment right of all.

The recent exception to this freedom however is the presence and advantage of social media, in all its non-governmental trimmings which, and here it is again, rubs the arbiters of expression as offensive or somehow deliquent. And naturally the transgressions are only so according to their own particular passions. The restriction of a single individual from a platform, and even here it seems such restrictions are not uniformly applied, is one thing. The exclusion of an entire political conviction by those in control of access to the platforms themselves is a completely different, and dangerous matter. If the First Amendment means anything, government must forge ironclad legislation protecting not only the public square, but also the electronic soap box, warty bubbles and all.

This is not the United States of Twitter or Facebook or Google, and cancel culture cannot and will not prevail if everyone (emphasis added a second time), from the cast and crew, to those in the orchestra, the loge and the balcony, all allow the show to go on, not only because of the message, but because without the performance itself one cannot appreciate the celebration of differences in thoughts and beliefs. And therein lies the biggest rub of all. A system restricting its freedoms to less than the whole will inevitably lead to the fewer, and fewer, until the theater will close its doors, or at the very least its Playbill and performances will contain only those discourses complimentary to the autocracy.

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech” Benjamin Franklin. The truth of this proclamation cannot be denied.