The short
answer to the question, “Does dissent make us weaker?” is no. But, the issue is far more complex than the
short answer implies.
For one
thing, just how far should Americans be able to go in exercising their right to
dissent? That is, just where do their
rights stop? Or do they? A popular saying holds that they stop at the
end of the next person’s nose. And,
judging from the never ending stream of demands that assault us every day, it
appears that everything on our personal or collective wish lists has now become
a right, without limit, including the right to say almost anything we want, to
anyone, at any time.
Limiting Dissent
That we have
a right to dissent and that doing so does not make us (America) weaker may seem
obvious, but does it also mean that we have a right to say and do anything we
want or to force our opinions or beliefs on others (as in Christian, Muslim,
atheist, hedonist, or environmentalist)?
Dissent may be part and parcel of the right to the freedom of speech
that’s enshrined in our Constitution, but there are, or should be, limits.
If our rights
stop at the end of the next person’s nose, does that include their
pocketbook? Stealing may be illegal and
immoral, but whether or not it is acceptable seems to depend on who does it and
why, and sometimes how. For example,
some people may consider it acceptable to steal food to feed one’s family but
unacceptable to steal money to keep from losing their home in foreclosure.
And, although
taking money from others by force or at gunpoint, or by embezzling it from
one’s employer, may be a crime, how many people condone appropriating someone
else’s dollars through taxation?
Probably everyone does, to some degree.
But, isn’t that the problem? That
is, the degree? Too often, in matters of
taxation, right and wrong depend on who has the power to tax or whose ox is
being gored. So, if we feel our tax laws
are unfair and confiscatory, should our right to dissent include refusing to
pay them?
Political Correctness vs. Dissent
When did we
move from the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution to freedom of
speech only if it’s politically correct according to some particular group,
such as African-Americans, Hispanics, women, gays, liberals, conservatives,
Christians, Muslims, Jews…..you name it?
Our treasured freedom of speech seems to be acceptable only so long as
it conforms to some special interest group’s interpretation of what they consider
“correct.”
Dissent or Treason
Dissent may
be a good thing, but when does it become more than simply expressing one’s
point of view and morph into “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” or worse
yet, treason, in time of war?
Consider the
case of Lynne Stewart, a lawyer who represented a blind Egyptian Sheikh, Omar
Abdel-Rahman, convicted in 1996 of plotting terrorist attacks in the U.S., for
which he received a “life” sentence. Ms.
Stewart was herself convicted of conspiracy and sentenced to 28 months in
prison for providing material support to terrorists by participating in passing
messages between the Sheikh and his terrorist followers on the outside, while
serving as one of his attorneys. Her
actions have been described as dissent from U.S. policies in the conduct of the
War on Terror.
Another
aspect of the question, “Does dissent make us weaker?” is the matter of where
and when we have the right to dissent. Although our cherished right of “free
speech” may guarantee us the right to speak out about issues, that doesn’t
guarantee the right to do so everywhere and anywhere. There appears to be a lot of confusion about
this. Many Americans seem to have the
idea that their right to dissent obligates others to provide them with a forum
for expressing their views, such as on radio and TV broadcasts. In fact, you may have the right to dissent,
but you normally have to provide your own soapbox.
Right to Dissent
There always
seem to be good and sufficient reasons for imposing our individual or
collective will on others. Both sides of
the political spectrum find plenty of justification for pressing their values
on everyone else. Abortion is about a
woman’s right to do what she wants with her body or it’s murder, depending on
one’s personal beliefs. Those on the
left say the Boy Scouts are wrong to prevent gays from being scout leaders,
notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the
Constitution guarantees their right to make such a determination. But, that hasn’t stopped the ACLU and others
who oppose the Boy Scouts’ policies from attempting to force communities around
the nation to punish them in various ways, such as pressuring donors, including
local governments, to stop giving them money or to cancel long standing
privileges to use certain community facilities, such as parks and school
grounds.
Dissent in the Schools
Schools have
always defined the types of organizations that are permitted to organize or
hold meetings on their premises. But
now, under the guise of keeping church and state separated, they go to such
extremes as permitting clubs to organize celebrations like Kwanzaa or Voodoo
rituals while preventing Christian students from protesting such policies on
school property.
Do students
have an unrestricted right to use vile language toward others, including
teachers, on school grounds? Our
confusion about whether there can or should be any limits on the right to
dissent is vividly demonstrated by the fact that vulgar language is acceptable
in some settings, such as the movies and on TV, but is unacceptable in churches
and public meetings. And, although our
right to dissent may include being able to curse teachers in school, prayer is
considered unconstitutional.
Furthermore,
the right to dissent goes beyond words. It
is also interpreted as including such things as how people dress and look or
such actions as burning the American flag.
Some is acceptable, some not.
Dissent vs. License
All rights,
including the right to dissent, can be measured on a continuum, ranging from
not having any rights to absolute, unrestricted and uncontrolled rights to do
or say anything to anyone, anytime, anywhere.
But, unlimited rights eventually reach the point where they become
license, that is, the unrestricted freedom to say or do anything we please,
regardless of whose “nose’ gets in the way.
Is that what we want? In the
final analysis, the right to dissent is really more about self-control than it
is about laws or regulation or the Constitution. You may have, or think you have, the right to
say or do whatever you please, but that doesn’t always mean you should, law or
no law.
Dissent is an
important and necessary escape valve for society, but that doesn’t mean the
right to do so should be unrestricted.
And, although dissent in general may not make us weaker, unbridled
dissent can, especially in times of war.
The problem is recognizing when it becomes actionable – the basis of
legal action against the dissenter – or treasonous. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously
wrote of pornography, we may not be able to define dissent, but we generally
know it when we see it. Dissent may not
make us weaker -- and sometimes it’s a little like taking medicine: we may hate
the taste, but it’s good for us -- however, that doesn’t mean it should be
unlimited.
© 2007 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights
Reserved