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
  • Welfare state grows as self-sufficiency declines

    For the past 50 years, the government’s annual poverty rate has hardly changed at all. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 15 percent of Americans still live in poverty, roughly the same rate as the mid-1960s when the War on Poverty was just starting.
    After adjusting for inflation, federal and state welfare spending today is 16 times greater than it was when President Lyndon B. Johnson launched the War on Poverty. If converted into cash, current means-tested spending is five times the amount needed to eliminate all official poverty in the U.S.
    How can the government spend so much while poverty remains unchanged? The answer is simple: The Census Bureau’s “poverty” figures are woefully incomplete.

    August 1, 2014

  • Let laughter reign in Turkey

    This week, Bulent Arinc, the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey, verbally chastised Turkish women for laughing in public. Before we take a closer look at these remarks — in the interest of full disclosure — I need to confess a personal bias. I love to hear my wife’s laughter. Sometimes, when I review the day’s highlights, the most pleasant thing that comes to mind is her laugh — it’s frequent, genuine, pleasantly-pitched, melodious, appropriately timed, infectious and charming.

    August 1, 2014

  • Is English getting dissed?

    Is the English language being massacred by the young, the linguistically untidy and anyone who uses the Internet? Absolutely.
    Is that anything new? Hardly.
    Many words and expressions in common parlance today would have raised the hackles of language scolds in the not-so-distant past. For evidence, let’s look at some examples from recent newspaper articles.

    July 31, 2014

  • 'Too big to fail' equals 'too eager to borrow'

    Four years ago this month, President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law, promising that the 848-page financial law would “put a stop to taxpayer bailouts once and for all,” he said. But recently, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren told a Detroit crowd that “the biggest banks are even bigger than they were when they got too big to fail in 2008.”
    Who’s right?

    July 30, 2014

  • Sheltons travel for better life for family

    Some time around 1865 a mixed-race African American couple, William and Mary Shelton, made their way from Mississippi to east Texas. Nothing is known for certain of their origins in he Magnolia state, or the circumstances under which they began their new lives in Texas.

    July 29, 2014

  • Film critic Turan produces book

    Kenneth Turan, who is the film critic for National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition,” has written a book “Not to be Missed, Fifty-Four Favorites from a Life Time of Film.” His list of movies span the gamut from the beginnings of filmmaking through the present day.
    There are some surprising omissions on his list. While he includes two films, “A Touch of Evil” and Chimes at Midnight” made by Orson Welles, and one, “The Third Man,” that Welles starred in but did not direct. He did not however, include “Citizen Kane,” that was the first movie Welles made, that is  often cited by both film critics and historians as a favorite film.

    July 28, 2014

  • Logan County’s disputed zone

    Watchers of “Star Trek” may recall the episode from the original series entitled, “Day of the Dove.” In this episode, Captain Kirk and his crew are forced by a series of circumstances into a confrontation with the Klingons. The conflict eventually resolves after Kirk realizes that the circumstances have been intentionally designed by an alien force which feeds off negative emotions, especially fear and anger. Kirk and his crew communicate this fact to the Klingons and the conflict subsides. No longer feeding upon confrontation, the alien force is weakened and successfully driven away.

    July 28, 2014

  • Russell leads in Sun poll

    Polling results of an unscientific poll at show that Steve Russell, GOP candidate for the 5th District congressional seat, is in the lead with 57 percent of the vote ahead of the Aug. 26 runoff election. Thirty readers participated in the online poll.

    July 28, 2014

  • Healthier and Wealthier? Not in Oklahoma

    Increased copays, decreased coverage, diminished health care access, reduced provider budgets and increased frustration are all the outcomes of the Legislature’s 2014 health care funding decisions. Unlike some years in the past when a languishing state economy forced legislators into making cuts, the undesirable outcomes this year could easily have been avoided.

    July 26, 2014

  • Medicaid reform a necessity

    Historically, education spending by the state of Oklahoma has been the largest budget item. This is no longer the case. In recent years, the state of Oklahoma spends more on Medicaid (operated by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority) than common education and higher education combined, according to the state’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.

    July 25, 2014


The runoff race for the 5th District congressional seat is set for Aug. 26. If the voting were today, which candidate would you support?

Al McAffrey
Tom Guild
     View Results