Where Seldom Is Heard

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.ⁱ

Congress doesn't have to. As a people we do it all the time. Speech may be free – in theory – but the economic and social costs are staggering. Of the two, the economic costs are the lesser consideration. Loss of business because of political views and boycotts, legal costs associated with libel and other trials related to speech issues, and penalties imposed because of what some view as intemperate speech are costly, but only to a few.

But the greater cost is social. Whoever is listening may take issue with what we have to say. Consequently, much of the limitation on the significant part of our “Freedom of Speech” is self imposed. Whether as a result of self-censorship or self-delusion, being PCⁱⁱ is better than being honest. Too often we avoid saying what is controversial, substituting the acceptable and familiar. Why look for trouble? Why risk accusations of insensitivity,ⁱⁱⁱ bullying,^iv or verbal sexism^v and abuse? Why chance alienating someone whose help we may need or whose friendship we want? It's said that “Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you.” Similar wisdom in the past told us that the earth was flat, and it was the center of the universe.

While, for the most part, we are not limited in what we can say, there are some restrictions which the State places on speech (shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater is the most famous of these) but by and large these are minimal. There have been various pieces of legislation (like the “Alien and Sedition Acts”) that have limited speech – at least for a time – but, unlike some other countries, an individual who speaks out against the American government is not likely to disappear. Some secrecy is necessary in order for a government to function and to carry on relations with other countries,^vi though the Freedom of Information Act and the courts provide something of a break against the abuses which may result from unwarranted secretiveness. And otherwise we're free to say whatever we want, however mindless it may be.

But, in view of the risks, an argument can be made that an “excess” of silence is sometimes wiser than complete candor. Too many “leaks,” though sometimes orchestrated by those who complain most about them, may be counterproductive. Better to remain neutral and quiet. Silence is golden. But, as Churchill said, “The hottest place in hell must be reserved for those who, in the face of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Sadly, too many people fear that it is better to say nothing than the “wrong” thing. Conformity^vii is safer. No one has to know your views. According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution guarantees privacy to all citizens,^viii but there are many legal and non-legal ways around such restrictions.

Our words are also limited by what we can think. To some degree the language we speak, crafted by our forebears, determines what we mean when we use particular words. Orwell, in 1984, demonstrated how that might play out if a strong government used language to limit and fashion the thoughts of the people ruled. Only the virtues of the government and its leader could be expressed.

At the other end of the spectrum, but equally misled, there are many who view self-criticism and criticism of their leaders, as a demonstration of “objectivity,” fairness, and an openness to the views of others. Some of America's greatest critics are Americans. They are not blind, but they wear blinders. Predisposed to favor the weak, they assume the strong are always wrong. They view their adopted position as one of justice and impartiality. Many see it as self-hatred, noting, correctly, that we are often critical of our own group to the exclusion of others.

At least that's our public persona: highly principled and laden with introspection and progressive philosophy. More privately,^ix however, especially on one of our electronic communicators,^x we indulge in the same inane gossip and sophomoric comments as everyone else – revealing much more of ourselves than we might if we reflected on the messages we transmit before hitting the “send” button. And once out of the can it is public forever. People are eager to “share” their thoughts,^xi but everything is recorded, and nothing is forgotten. There are no private thoughts on these media. You don't know the size of your audience or when your “secret” words may go “viral.” The only way to have private thoughts is to keep everything to yourself.^xii After all, we're all prejudiced against something, even if it's only prejudice itself. So we're better off if others don't know of our biases lest we be lambasted for them. Or accused of hate speech.

But it is difficult not to wonder how long that will last. With prostheses now available that respond to thoughts, it is likely that sooner or later there will be other devices that will transmit more complex thoughts to others. Or devices that they use to transmit their thoughts to us. Authorities have strong views on many subjects (not only the wish to guarantee their own acceptance by the individual^xiii) and they will want us to share their perspective. Mottoes, slogans, the “bully pulpit” and the power of the press may work for now,^xiv but more powerful tools will be available in the future.

What can I say? The monks have it right. Silence is golden. But not for long. Mind-reading and thought control are in the wings.

What can you say? This is one of those cases where “less is more.” Or at least it's more desirable. Silence may be golden now, but it won't work forever. Take advantage of it while you can. So, for the moment, say as little as possible, and only to those you trust. Then, when your trust is violated, and that, unfortunately, is inevitable, you won't be too much at risk of misinterpretation.^xv But it will happen. So whatever you're thinking or saying, fuggedaboutit.

Next episode: “The Root Of All Evil” – And, in the words of Milton Berle, “I'm right in there rooting.”

i     First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1791.

ii     Politically Correct.

iii    For example, we never speak of “blind” people when referring to the visually challenged. Nor do we ever talk about Islam except to praise it. Saying anything else labels us as bigots.

iv    Any criticism may be viewed as bullying.

v     Never speak ill of the opposite sex. Or your sex. Or at all.

vi    Even businesses and labor unions require some degree of privacy, as do politicians. Negotiations and compromise are difficult in public where more posturing is necessary.

vii    With the ideas of whatever group you currently adhere to.

viii   Even if that idea is nowhere to be found in the document.

ix     At least we believe it's more privately.

x     Dick Tracy's wrist radio has grown up.

xi     They assume that others actually care.

xii   “Thoughts” by public figures seem to be public by design. They're formed to elicit publicity.

xiii   Typical examples are the Church's reaction to Galileo and science, the Nazi response to music – especially that by Jews, and the Communists' view of art and realism.

xiv    See 1984.

xv    Human nature is human nature. Don't expect it to change for you.