From: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: "Free Speech and Crying Wolf"
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:37:31 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In Message-ID: <1992Aug25.150827.11033@midway.uchicago.edu>
    Mr. Hasnain asks:
    
>In the midst of this debate on free speech, I want to pose a question:  Does 
>free speech exist in the US at all?  

   Let me answer that question by asking you one: what does "free" mean?
   If "free speech" means one can say anything one wishes and remain
   "free" (i.e., not be imprisoned) then yes, free speech exists. If
   however "free speech" means "speech free of any and all adverse
   consequences," then no, of course free speech does not and cannot
   exist. One who makes outrageous comments will suffer social
   ostracism (i.e, ain't gonna have no friends). If one's comments
   are so outrageous as to raise questions of one's emotional
   stability, judgement, self-discipline, et cetera, one's employment
   prospects may suffer (e.g., Jimmy "The Greek" Schneider [sp?],
   Al Campanis, the USAF general who spoke too freely of operational
   plans before the Gulf War began). If one knowingly makes false
   statements, one may be forced to pay damages to the libelled or
   slandered party. 

   *Any action* has a consequence, such is the Nature of Life, and
   I do not believe that that Nature can be overcome.


Mr. Hasnain states that:

>1.  Doctors cannot mention abortion as an alternative to patients.

   This statement needs to be clarified, and doing so will lead in to
   what I regard as a grave danger to free speech in America today.
   I presume the above statement refers to the Supreme Court ruling
   that U.S. government rules preventing personnel in Federally-
   funded clinics from mentioning abortion as an alternative. This
   is *not* a free-speech issue, but rather a public finance issue
   (what constitutes wise use of public funds?) and the court case itself
   raised a question of separation of powers (can the judiciary 
   restrain the executive from issuing such rules?) We can argue
   about whether public funding should be used in a manner that might
   lead to an abortion (which many taxpayers, who are sometimes called
   voters or even citizens, find repugnant), but we have no free-
   speech issue here. Likewise, Senator Helms' initiative on NEA
   funding of "offensive" art was *not* a free-speech issue, but
   rather one of: what constitutes wise and appropriate use of public
   funds?

   I should be ashamed to say this, but when I read an article the
   first paragraph of which contains the term "freedom of speech"
   I rarely read the second paragraph. Why? Because long experience
   has shown that those articles are *not* about freedom of speech;
   usually they pertain to wise and appropriate use of public funds.
   I wonder how many people there are like me, who have become
   apathetic because "Wolf!" has been shouted so often regarding
   freedom of speech. If a true danger manifests itself, if genuine
   attempts to stifle speech are made, will we recognize them; or
   have we become apathetic because so many false claims to
   free speech have been made?

Robert George
(speaking only for myself)

"The very essence of individual freedom is equal justice under a rule of
law, a law to which every man shall be subject and which no executive
can modify."
    Senator Robert Taft , March 11, 1944
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:5146 alt.censorship:7167 misc.legal:16475