I am not a lawyer, nor an expert in constitutional law, nor do I play one on TV; thankfully, our U.S. Constitution’s language regarding the First Amendment and our Bill of Rights is written in plain language.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — U.S. Constitution, First Amendment Freedom of speech, as well as freedom of the press, has been — for nearing 2.5 centuries — a hallmark of American liberty. And though that right may at times be under assault, it still entirely exists, and is enshrined in the framing documents of our republic. Presidential support for this freedom has typically been unquestioned as well, even when the heat of a critical media singes administrations.
One of my favorite presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, acknowledged that presidents will often receive critique and second-guessing — and that comes with the job.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but morally treasonable to the American Public,” he declared.
Teddy is also remembered for taking an assassin’s bullet to the chest, at point-blank range, while giving a stump speech during his third run for president — and then finishing the speech.
The glasses case in his coat pocket deflected the bullet’s trajectory, making the bullet wound much less severe.
However, free speech and acceptance of presidential critique are not limited to the GOP side of the aisle. President Lyndon Johnson, during the height of the Vietnam War, was experiencing flagging popularity that would eventually lead him to decide not to seek a second term.
Johnson was a regular target for skewering by the then-popular Smothers Brothers on their weekly TV variety show.
After Johnson’s V.P., Hubert Humphrey, lost his bid for the White House, the Smothers Brothers sent a note of apology to Johnson for making him such a frequent target of their satire.
And LBJ wrote them back: “It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists.
You have given the gift of laughter to our people.
May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives.”
President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Nov. 9, 1968 Setting aside the recent (temporary) departure from ABC’s airwaves of Jimmy Kimmel, who I found to be much funnier and more offensive during his pudgy and pasty days hosting “The Man Show,” or the pending swan song of his more erudite peer, Stephen Colbert, the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue wants to take this scrubbing and dismantling of free speech and press even further.
From the Sept. 19 edition of The New York Times, our current president shared his thoughts on critical coverage of his administration: “They’ll take a great story, and they’ll make it bad. See, I think that’s really illegal.”
President Donald J. Trump.
No, it’s not. We don’t have the First Amendment to protect popular speech or words of praise. We cherish the right to question or bring truth to power, to speak our minds freely.
To hopefully maintain a civil discourse while disagreeing broadly on the best paths and remedies of the day.
I have a feeling that this president would have gotten along well with King George II, and perhaps T.R. and L.B.J. not so much. Trump says he prefers to “speak the truth” and say what others only think … but that, of course, is his truth.
If lying or making false statements to the media became illegal, would anyone care to estimate the number of charges the president might generate against himself in an average press briefing?
You cannot incite violence or harm against others. Perjury, or lying under oath, is illegal. Other than that, even the most vile and offensive speech is protected.
Could a reputable law school professor provide our Attorney General with a refresher course on the distinctions between hate crimes and hate speech? The former is illegal in many states, and with a prescribed definition, the latter is constitutionally protected.
Thankfully, ignorance also remains legal here in ‘Merica as well.