The Edmond Sun


May 17, 2014

Free speech comes with responsibilities

EDMOND — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black put it this way: “Freedom of speech means that you shall not do something to people either for the views they have, or the views they express, or the words they speak or write.”

The price Americans pay for free speech is this: You’re free to hold and express any opinion you want without fear of persecution. In return, you must tolerate the expression of opinions you may find abhorrent. If unpopular opinions are fair game for persecution, free speech becomes dependent on the whim of the majority.

The cost of this freedom is cheap if we all had the same opinion. Or, if differing opinions cause us no discomfort. Our commitment to free speech is tested and validated when we hold fast to our principles even though our natural urge is to force the proponent of abhorrent ideas to just shut up.

John Stuart Mill put it this way: “If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Put another way, there are no innocent bystanders when free speech is under attack. Even if the onlooker is neutral in a hotly contested battle of ideas, that onlooker is bound to weigh in if one side or the other seeks to punish the opponent for lawful expression of opinion. We all have an obligation to speak in defense of freedom of expression even if we agree with the opinions of the oppressors.

If American citizens stand idle when our courts employ the force of government to silence the lawful expression of opinion, everyone’s freedom of speech is at risk. If American citizens remain passive when bullies and ideologues seek to silence the expression of ideas, those citizens are betraying a sacred trust. As Justice Holmes observed, “The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: That we may think what we like and say what we think.”

Recently, we’ve seen an alarming growth in instances of blatant assaults on free speech. There’s a rising tendency among certain quarters to use noisy intimidation, threats of violence, economic sanctions and loud distractions in orchestrated campaigns calculated to smother opposing viewpoints.

Earlier this month, pursuant to a ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, students at Live Oak high school in Morgan Hill, Calif., were prohibited, by school authorities, from wearing clothing decorated with the United States flag. According to those authorities, this prohibition was necessary because some faction among the student body threatened violence if their classmates were permitted to carry out this display of national pride. In this case, the bullies were appeased by sacrificing the free-speech rights of their classmates.

In April, Brandeis University withdrew its offer to confer an honorary degree on women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and “uninvited” her to attend its graduation exercises to serve as the commencement speaker. Brandeis’ cowardly behavior in this regard was done to appease a vocal group of intolerant ideologues who objected to certain opinions Ali expressed in the past.

More recently, a group of noisy, intolerant bullies threatened to disrupt the commencement exercises at Rutgers University if Condoleezza Rice attended as the commencement speaker. The administration and student body of Rutgers were unable to muster enough moral strength to counteract this shameful display of intolerance. Rice, in order to avoid the threatened disruption, withdrew from the spectacle.

There is a growing “Canon” of accepted opinion that must not be contradicted. Anyone foolhardy enough to question this “Canon” does so at the risk of generating a near hysterical backlash of intolerance. There are certain groups of “unpopular” opinions that will draw swift and merciless punishment if expressed in public. We all know there are categories of “approved” opinions concerning matters of race, religion, sexual orientation and social relationships that, no matter how arrived at, must never be openly expressed. There are approved opinions on these subjects that may be expressed by one group but are forbidden to another.

At the dawn of this nation’s history, George Washington observed, “If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led like sheep to the slaughter.”

American citizens are in the coils of those who are gradually constricting our freedom of speech, religion and pursuit of happiness. Unless the people shake off these coils, they will find themselves the lowly servants of the government and the forces of intolerance. I’m Hink and I’ll see ya.

MIKE HINKLE is a retired attorney and Edmond resident.

Text Only
  • OTHER VIEW: Newsday: Lapses on deadly diseases demand explanation

    When we heard that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had created a potentially lethal safety risk by improperly sending deadly pathogens — like anthrax — to other laboratories around the country, our first reaction was disbelief.

    July 22, 2014

  • Holding government accountable for open meeting violations

    A few weeks ago I wrote about the recent success of three important government transparency proposals which will go into law this year.

    July 21, 2014

  • GUEST OPINION — Oklahoma GOP voters want educational choices

    A Braun Research survey released in January showed that Oklahoma voters — Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike — favor parental choice in education.

    July 21, 2014

  • HEY HINK: IRS interferes with citizens’ rights of free speech

    The patient is gravely ill. We have detected traces of a deadly venom in the bloodstream. We don’t know how widespread the poison is, but we know, if not counteracted, toxins of this kind can rot the patient’s vital organs and could ultimately prove fatal.

    July 19, 2014

  • 130408_NT_BEA_good kids We're raising a generation of timid kids

    A week ago, a woman was charged with leaving her child in the car while she went into a store. Her 11-year-old child. This week, a woman was arrested for allowing her 9-year-old daughter to go to the park alone. Which raises just one question: America, what the heck is wrong with you?

    July 17, 2014 1 Photo

  • RedBlueAmerica: What should the U.S. do about illegal immigrant children?

    The crisis along the southern U.S. border has politicians and immigration officials scrambling. More than 52,000 children, mostly from Central American nations, have arrived so far this year. The Department of Homeland Security is running out of space to hold them all.
    President Barack Obama is asking Congress for $3.7 billion in borrowed money from taxpayers to cover the growing “care, feeding and transportation costs of unaccompanied children and family groups” when our own veterans are not taken care of. Texas Gov. Rick Perry criticized the president’s plan, saying more money should go toward securing the border.

    July 17, 2014

  • VA scandal highlights the need to change Pentagon spending priorities

    The ongoing Department of Veterans Affairs scandal raises an important question: When our veterans are being denied access to basic health care, why is the Pentagon squandering billions of dollars on programs that do not benefit our military forces? Is there a link in organization attitudes?

    July 16, 2014

  • For better politics, it’s time for some raging moderates

    Like more than 20 percent of my fellow Californians, I am now classified as a no-party-preference voter, registered to vote but with no affiliation to any of the state’s political parties.
    I am for lower taxes and for marriage equality. I am tough on crime and I am anti-abortion. I believe that a pathway to citizenship is a necessary part of immigration reform and that student test scores should be a critical component of teacher evaluations.

    July 15, 2014

  • Father on mission to stop gun violence

    Since his son died six weeks ago as collateral damage to a troubled young man’s wish for vengeance, Richard Martinez has been asked whom he holds responsible.
    “I’m responsible,” the California lawyer answers, referring to most Americans’ failure to push harder to change gun laws after earlier mass shootings. “All those kids died and none of us did anything.”

    July 14, 2014

  • The Kansas City Star: Obama must end the public information barriers

    Mr. President, you have a public information problem. Again. Several months ago, journalism organizations complained about a lack of access for news photographers to pertinent presidential events.

    July 14, 2014


If the Republican runoff for the 5th District congressional seat were today, which candidate would you vote for?

Patrice Douglas
Steve Russell
     View Results