Sacrificing For Democracy or Sacrificing Democracy?

Our very first amendment: “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” Being able to freely criticize our government is the very function of freedom of speech that constitutes our democracy. Citizens in a self-governing society depend on freedom of speech to determine whether or not to elect a government candidate or support a particular policy. Freedom of speech fosters an environment of contrasting opinions and individuality but at the same time of tolerance and acceptance. The only way people can make educated decisions is through being able to freely discuss, debate, and listen to the differing perspectives. Being able to voice criticism or concern against the government also helps to prevent government officials from keeping secret illegitimate or unethical practices. The government does not have the option of strengthening its authority through the suppressing of contrasting ideas or opinions.
Thus, the allowing of differing ideas and opinions about our government to circulate freely and uncensored is an essential aspect of our democracy.

In fact, from the literal interpretation of the text of the First Amendment it would seem evident that the speech of any individual or group of people should never be silenced. Restricting expression at any point should be precisely the “abridging” of these freedoms that is declared unconstitutional. Yet, many have made the case for the restricting of freedom of expression during war, and as Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated, at times of war the balance between freedom and order must shift “in favor of order.” However, it is difficult to understand how this essential aspect of our democracy could be restrained, even if temporarily. What could possibly constitute a legitimate reason for the abrogating of this freedom?

The restricting of all speech or press that could theoretically be defended as the most effective means of ensuring victory, and thus any information that could be counterproductive to the war effort should be censored. This, however, would leave room for exploitation, as the government could easily use the pretense of war and outlaw any form of opposition that could harbor its own interests, and not necessarily that which pertains to the overall success of the war. Even what might appear as a legitimate public concern, such as boisterous opposition having the potential to inflict damage on the war effort through its negative effects, like causing a dearth in army enrollment, or strengthening the enemy resolve, could just be a means for the government to prevent voters from being not be swayed to replace the incumbent officers with more competent ones. Furthermore, the war interests that are being so carefully protected, who says they are legitimate in the first place, or that the original reasons for being engulfed in the particular conflict still hold true?

The government could even go as far as to make a case for all basic information such as a growing death toll, lack of progress, and growing hostility among other countries to be banned on the grounds that these bits of information harbor the war effort. And even if a legitimate war existed, and the restricting of information was essential to bolster support and expedite its victory, the cons of sacrificing freedom of speech would outweigh the pros. Restricting freedom of speech would not only be manipulating public opinion but it would constitute a major threat to the existence of our democracy. It would also be very hypocritical of a government that does not hesitate to characterize its wars as a “mission to spread democracy”.

“Operation Iraqi Freedom” is what has been used by the administration to refer to the “war on Iraq.” In this war, especially, debate needs to be encouraged and people should be exposed to the clashing of opinions and uncensored news not only because it is our tax dollars being spent, and our fellow country men being sacrificed, but because of the hypocritical aspect in it. Even the images, specifically designed to incite people against the war, such as clips with grotesque images of civilian casualties in Iraq (click here to see) should not be censored. And as expanded upon above, once the government begins regulating the expression of opinion it is treading on dangerous ground, as it now has tremendous opportunities for exploitation.
Yahoo news recently wrote “How is it that more than a year has passed without seeing one casket, one dead soldier or one maimed civilian? When Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman asked CNN’s Aaron Brown why they weren’t showing footage of casualties, Brown responded that it might be in poor taste. It’s poor taste when the electorate is informed of the realities of war, but not when TV reels off the hundreds of violent acts that are considered routine on an evenings programming." This is an excellent and at the same time frightening question. Is the banning of the displaying of the flag-draped coffins really because the ad politicizes war casualties and is an insult to the families of the troops killed in Iraq. or is it because the administration recognizes its tremendous potential to exacerbate the already widespread opposition and further alienate the public against the war? If it is the latter, it is a powerful illustration of how the government can circumnavigate in order not to outright abrogate free speech, and strengthens the case for freedom of expression never to be compromised: the potential for exploitation. The only exception is when free speech directly compromising national security, which would include the relaying of war plans, instructions of how to build nuclear weapons etc. Limiting the right of the public to criticize the government or its policies will never have a constitutional basis. The Alien and Sedition Acts, although a scar on our history, will hopefully serve as a historical lesson to prevent the abrogation of our First Amendment rights from every being repeated.