New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1901-03-11
FREE THOUGHT AND FREE SPEECH.
THE LIMITS OF FREEDOM NOT SETTLED
LOGICALLY OR MORALLY.

To the Editor of The Tribune
Sir: Il is highly gratifying TO observe that the
Tribune has not lost its head on the question OF
the freedom of instruction as illustrated IN FRO
.essor Ross's case. II might even go further. Inc
question Of freedom of thought is by no means
settled one from a logical, perhaps even from
moral standpoint.
The denial OF freedom OF thought. with the denial
OF freedom OF action lies at the basis OF our WhoIe
modern social oroer. The Ten Commandments are
denials of freedom Of thought speech and action.
The religion Of Jesus, which assumes super
natural wisdom as Its source OF knowledge, denies
The right OF free thought. The Bible Itself con-
tsins ST. Paul's anathema upon any one, even
though ''an angel from heaven, who should preach
any other Gospel than that which was revealed
True. the religion OF Jesus plainly rejects the
scea Of material penalties for spiritual disooedi-
ences or unlawful PHILOSOPHERS. But certainly the
logical position Of the religion OF Jesus is that OF
spiritual penalties (Which II assumes 10 be Tar
worse than materially for those who think ana
believe outside Independently OF the autnorita-
tive message Of Christ
But setting aside the religious aspect OF FREQ
thinking" and taking up its purely mundane feat
ues, one is tempted 10 call halt for further dis
cassion as 10 its practical and logical value.
One would like have time to put 1t through
q DIX OF Socratic cross questioning. For example.
one would Ike 10 ask: Does not freedom Of thought
also imply freedom Of its evolution into expression
either OF word or deed?
one can readily imagine the logical position OF
one who should say a child TO the wisest man
N existence: "a vastly larger experience than yours
W vastly superior being than yourself has fuzzy
ana clearly established the fact that certain views
VI NE and certain actions are perverse and harm
Lul 10 yourself and social order You are, there
,ose forbidden 10 waste your brains and destroy
5ers ge 6aa op trying TO revise these III you
tais ~ ave F esloenee that you break us law GO
a
Cow "eIth more than the peace and happiness That
man an offset for the misery and ruin and moral
,sSSelon that come from wrong thought
me moment leads 10 social disorder interference
thsn o 10y nee thought or your neighbours happiness
ros shey stag let loose by its keeper and free TO
wcrb because us keeper fances that Its liberty is
grosns ~ rs freedom II roamed into the keeper
When men shout for free thohpg s5' and take
49, a. RESTRICTIONS from mems souls and minds,
* shooting when in the exercise of This freedom
MA oS w precincts are invaded?
ne mine free thought into its inevitable ex-
si SIM oy word or deed becomes crime and a
ons sFbshisrp is the only logical outcome Of free
srsrehis sSn OF course the philosophy OF
feejv sssichlsIn is not willing TO wait until all
sxadays Of not shouting surrey fos a9 one
thousbfsi IN me AR; II Is an instinct, Yes. but
dsE Offsets INSTINCT g Sr rea ns shouting to calm
geera aaye as YET tried free thought only for
signs =, or TWO. Already. however, IL shows
Not s NOT pelng the blessing IL assumes 10 be.
MOI a. iew students OF our social development are
era Of mos sure that We are not entering upon an
mural cecadence and political corruption
alrrass eo In history. The question arises into
sure soony proportions whether no we are
test 30 at our present civilization Will stand ths
IN cs1oiiuitlons where every will feel free
thinks Ilce 10 think, and therefore TO do what n.
For rs = maps NE majority may think wrongly
even n 80 tesson II is well 20 keep ones head cool
ane neart Is warm when freedom OF Thought
stahss scIon is assumed as a right worth All
Xar-snna advancing social order a'
~ stown. ~. J.. Feb q 1901 a.