HOME :: PUBLICATIONS :: Does the First Amendment Mean What It Says Regarding Speech?, by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

Does the First Amendment Mean What It Says Regarding Speech?

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY December 2, 2010
As I noted earlier, yesterday’s column was about Wikileaks and dealt with whether there is a public “right to know.” In part, that poses the question whether the First Amendment permits the government to limit what newspapers may publish. I made the following assertion:
 
From its inception, the First Amendment has never been understood to mean what it says — just ask the Times, a notorious champion of speech-stifling campaign finance “reform” as well as “hate speech” restrictions. Where speech is concerned, civil libertarians and devotees of the “living Constitution” see the First Amendment as an “aspiration, to be given meaning over time,” as the University of Chicago’s Geoffrey Stone has put it.
 
I should perhaps have been clearer that I am not a devotee of the “living Constitution.” If you read my stuff, you already know that. Moreover, I wrote a pretty spirited dissent from Prof. Stone’s engaging book, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime, for the March 2005 edition of Commentary (my essay was called, “Free Speech for Terrorists?”) Like Justice Scalia, I like my Constitution dead, thank you very much, and think we should use its amendment process if we want to liven it up.
 
Nevertheless, I’ve always taken the language of the First Amendment’s free speech clause — “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” — to be more sweeping than the freedom it was understood to convey. That’s why I said, probably too off-handedly, that “the First Amendment has never been understood to mean what it says.” I don’t agree with Prof. Stone’s argument that it was an aspirational provision meant to evolve with the times. But I also don’t think limitations on speech that were well known in the late 18th Century (e.g., obscenity, profanity, libel, “fighting words”) were well conveyed by the free speech clause.
 
As usual, Ed Whelan to the rescue. Ed points out to me that the clause does not forbid Congress from abridging freedom of speech generally — as if there were no conceivable restrictions. The framers took pains to insert the definite article the — barring Congress from “abridging the freedom of speech.” It seems like a small difference, but it is not. As Ed puts it, “the freedom of speech” was an “understood set of rights” at the time of the First Amendment’s adoption. In other words, the text of the First Amendment does not prohibit all restrictions on speech.  It merely prohibits abridgement of “the freedom of speech.”  The question with respect to any speech restriction, therefore, is whether what it restricts is part of “the freedom of speech.” 
 
Ed’s point is consistent with Judge Bork’s argument in Slouching Towards Gomorrah. Excerpting from the Supreme Court’s 1942 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Judge Bork points out that
 
[t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
 
As always, I am indebted to Ed and to Judge Bork, not only for the lesson in originalism but for the happy reminder that, as late as 1942, the Supreme Court assumed the existence of both truth and a social interest in order and morality!
 
FamilySecurityMatters.orgContributor  Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihadand most recently The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America. He blogs at National Review Online's The Corner.This article appeared earlier on National Review’s “The Corner.”
 

blog comments powered by Disqus

Jeb Bush can manage his way around those right-wing ‘chirpers'

June 17, 2013  10:22 PM

Noted ornithologist Jeb Bush today confirmed that the call of the right-wing “wacko bird” is the standard chirp, and he’s adept at ignoring the sound. The Washington Post reports that Bush, in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, defended his conservative credentials and assured supporters, “I will be able to, I think, manage my way […]

#TheyFeelPain, but: White House vows to veto ‘pain-capable' abortion bill

June 17, 2013  09:39 PM

In its coverage of the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” which is headed to the House floor tomorrow, the New York Times was careful to note that the idea that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks is a “scientifically disputed theory.” Pro-lifers, though, used the #TheyFeelPain hashtag today to pressure legislators to at […]

Porky: Immigration bill reportedly up to 24 pounds; Heaviest since Obamacare

June 17, 2013  08:21 PM

One thing that you never see and hear in Washington, D.C. is somebody looking at a piece of legislation and saying “have you lost weight?” That’s certainly not the case with the immigration reform legislation: Immigration bill largest since Affordable Care Act, weighs 24 pounds washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/…— WatersandHoodReport (@watersandhood) June 17, 2013 President Clinton taking healthy […]

Rubio office steams about New Yorker ‘can't cut it' quote; NR's Rich Lowry confirms

June 17, 2013  07:14 PM

The above tweet references an article in the New Yorker written by Ryan Lizza. In the piece, Lizza quotes an unnamed staffer for Sen. Marco Rubio as saying a guest-worker program is a necessity because some American workers “can’t cut it.” National Review’s Rich Lowry, who mentioned the quote at NRO’s The Corner blog, pointed […]

Bold claim: President Obama says he's not Dick Cheney

June 17, 2013  06:25 PM

Let’s be honest. We had never, ever, not for a second mistaken President Obama for former Vice President Dick Cheney. But now that Obama has reportedly claimed in an interview with Charlie Rose that he’s not Dick Cheney, we’re beginning to have our suspicions. Maybe the Huffington Post wasn’t that far off with its mock-up […]

FSM Archives

  FSM Archive   Search Must Reads
More in PUBLICATIONS ( 1 OF 25 ARTICLES )