New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1901-09-30
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ACTION.

The assassination of the President and the
extraordinary license of speech concerning him
which preceded if il did not actually incite it
have caused much discussion of the general
principle of free speech. in which there have
been not a few demands for the abridgment of
such freedom. There is, of course, general
reluctance-we might say positive unwilling
ness-to adopt any measure abridging freedom
of speech or of the press. Such freedom is
garded as one OF the fundamental principles of
the nation, and ii is believed that any form of
State censorship speech and the press
would result in more serious evils than those
now suffered from occa sional abuse of freedom
This belief is so widely and so deeply rooted in
the minds of the nation that there is little
prospect of its ever being eradcated. or Of there
ever being enacted any abridgment of a citi-
zen's right 10 speak and TO print what he wills.
under the common rule of responsibility after
the utterance.
IT may be WELL and may conduce TO clearer
and more just appreciation o. the use and abuse
Of freedom of speech, to compare freedom of
speech with freedom OF action. II this is land
of free speech il is also certainly land of free
action. Theoretically. man may commit any
acts he wills. subject to accountability for its
effects. In fact however large classes OF acts
A
is forbidden. and properly, 10 do any act which
will injure his neighbOr He must not break
into that neighbours house, nor steal his goods,
ner lay violent hands upon him. He must not
beat his own horse cruelty. nor drive it faster
than at a certain rate on the public street, and
he must turn to the right when he meets an
other. These and innumerable other restric-
tions are placed upon liberty of action. They
ar mis- in wit W.
for the act TO be performed and its evil results
TO be manifested. Yet no one but an anarchist
thinks that this is therefore not land of free
dom.
Obviously, it would be most difficult, and per
haps impossible. TO apply to speech the
strants the admonitory penalties which are
conceded in the case of action 10 he Just and
proper and congrnous with ordered freedom.
That is chiefly because the effects of words are
not rs readily and as certainly to be proved
are the effects of deeds But obviously. too. the
moral responsibility and the moral obligation
are as great in the as in the other.
The man who abuses liberty of speech and en-
Joys immunity because of the impossibility of
proving his evil influence is morally at par with
him who commits criminal acts and escapes
punishment through some trick or technicality
II may never be practicable or even desira BILE
TO enact laws more strictly regulating In adj
vance the exercise of speech. II will he proper
and desirable to enforce with memorable strict
ness full accountability for all abuses of utter
ance. And it is above all Supremacy desirable
that all men shall appreciate the power of
speech for evil as well as for good. and shall
accordingly refrain from violent speech as
scrupulously from violent action, and shall
more think of lying about a man-even
about the President Of the United States-than
of stealing from him. or of uttering insults
against him than of committing a physical as
sault upon him.