Chandos the Red
Fri, 4th Feb '05, 9:29pm
Beware: You are about to enter a highly charged political zone. . .enter at your own risk.
Quick! Who is Matthew Lyon?
This topic dovetails nicely with a similar thread started by Tal on freedom of the press and a disturbing survey which found that many high school students appeared to never have heard of the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This topic came about because of a number of strands of thinking on freedom of speech that have intersected here on these boards, yet speak directly to the creation of the American republic and the political atmosphere of the current form of democracy that America claims to enjoy today. The march of freedom, to use a phrase already coined and heavily used, has been from a limited republic to a full-blown democracy, which is based on the one-man-one-vote premise. Many of the Founders suspected that the limited republic they were crafting was really a foundation for this kind of representative government, which we live under today. So what’s the real deal here? It is about personal freedom.
Who respects freedom of speech anyway? Everyone raise their hand. On the other thread we almost discovered that freedom was a “conservative value.” Interesting. Certainly, conservatives enjoy freedom of speech. That’s easy enough to prove. In 1991 I voted for Bill Clinton. The Clinton “jokes” started from day one: ranting AM radio jocks, TV commentator-entertainers (Rush), even the mainstream press seemed an endless stream of “Bubba” comments.
Right after the election, I sat having dinner in a public restaurant, with the woman who would later become my wife, (she voted for Bill also). At the table across from us was one of those large church groups; the women with big Texas hair and all, who just must have had their nightly sermon. They were loud in exchanging Clinton jokes: “Did you hear this one about Buba?” Or, “How about Hilary going to the doctor to find out that she had AIDS.” Good upstanding Christian folk they were. Those of us who voted for Bill just sat and smiled at first, thinking it was just a little of the typical, but harmless “sour grapes.” This was despite the fact that a brilliant man, a Rhodes Scholar, and the current president, was constantly berated as a “Bubba.”
Later many conservatives took freedom of speech even further: Hilary was a “lesbian,” and a hanger-on, because she was married to the “prez.” They were both thieves, stealing furniture from the White House; they were swindlers, crooked lawyers. The talk went on unabated. It was after all, Freedom of speech. Then they were murderers - Vince Foster, killed by the Clinton “drug-lords” from the Ozarks. Bill was a rapist, a molester of women. Much of this nonsense was reported in the mainstream media, and most of it unfounded. Yet that did not stop, CBS, CNN, FOX. Really? And there was an outrage that someone (Dan Rather) made an accusation on CBS that George II used his influence to get out of going to Vietnam. You would think the guy just called the prez a “murderer,” or something. Yes, I guess freedom of speech is truly a conservative value - exclusively, it would appear. So now the other shoe has fallen. Those of us who endured eight years of “Bubba calling” are enjoying our turn at Freedom of speech. But the term that is popular these days is “Bush bashing.” Some of us would rather call it what it is: politics – pure and simple. It is a time-honored, American, yet very powerful tradition of speaking out against political foes, regardless of whom they happen to be. And as someone once remarked: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
But this tirade is really just to get some sort of handle, or perspective, on the whole issue of freedom of expression and what can be said and who can say it. So, who is Matthew Lyon? He was one of the leaders of the Revolutionary generation. He fought in the Revolution under Ethan Allen, and afterwards became a congressman from Vermont. But during the crisis with France in 1798, he was convicted, and sent to prison for writing a piece in the “Vermont Journal” which dared to criticize John Adams, who was then president. But that did not stop him from being reelected by his state while he was serving his sentence.
It was under one of the new laws, passed by the Federalist government, which forbade anyone from saying, or writing anything against the government and creating “sedition” against it. The laws were called the “Sedition Laws of 1798.” But wasn’t John Adams a “lover of liberty” and one of those Founders who believed in personal freedom? Well yes, but nevertheless, he signed a set of laws which was a direct affront to the Bill of Rights. Jefferson and Madison went to work on what would later become the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions to refute what Adams and the Federalists had crafted.
It seems odd to us today that a tavern keeper could be arrested, convicted and fined a few months’ wages just for commenting in public that John Adams had a “big ass” but it really happened during 1798 in New Jersey. And this was under the watch of the Founders themselves! But the Sedition Acts proved to be a large part of the undoing of the Federalist Party, just as Jefferson predicted to Madison that it would.
But I would like you to consider one of the most radical founders of them all: Ben Franklin. The name Franklin is English, and in the late Middle Ages it meant literally “freeman.” It was a name that Franklin’s family chose for itself because it described how they conducted themselves. There is story of how one of Franklin’s forefathers found himself in trouble with the English authorities for writing disparaging poems about the King and the local lords. So it was no surprise that the family would eventually settle in New England, to gain economic, political and religious freedom, as many Puritans in England had sought. He became one of the sharpest pens and wits of the Revolutionary generation (and that’s saying quite a lot). When the Quakers were “brazen” enough to bring up the issue of slavery before the new government after 1789, they were met with a “great wall of silence” by many of the Founders. But Franklin, then dying, had himself carried to the congressional debate over the issue over slavery, to say his piece about how America could not be truly free until the abolition of slavery occurred. It was his last public appearance, but a mighty and noble one. What Franklin did and said was unpopular during his time. But that never stopped him. So why should it stop us now?
The fact remains that we enjoy a great amount of latitude in our freedom of speech today. But the question still remains: Is freedom a conservative value? Those of you with enough fortitude, bearing with the limits of my inadequate writing skills and the ponderous length of this tirade, probably have convictions of your own.
Quick! Who is Matthew Lyon?
This topic dovetails nicely with a similar thread started by Tal on freedom of the press and a disturbing survey which found that many high school students appeared to never have heard of the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. This topic came about because of a number of strands of thinking on freedom of speech that have intersected here on these boards, yet speak directly to the creation of the American republic and the political atmosphere of the current form of democracy that America claims to enjoy today. The march of freedom, to use a phrase already coined and heavily used, has been from a limited republic to a full-blown democracy, which is based on the one-man-one-vote premise. Many of the Founders suspected that the limited republic they were crafting was really a foundation for this kind of representative government, which we live under today. So what’s the real deal here? It is about personal freedom.
Who respects freedom of speech anyway? Everyone raise their hand. On the other thread we almost discovered that freedom was a “conservative value.” Interesting. Certainly, conservatives enjoy freedom of speech. That’s easy enough to prove. In 1991 I voted for Bill Clinton. The Clinton “jokes” started from day one: ranting AM radio jocks, TV commentator-entertainers (Rush), even the mainstream press seemed an endless stream of “Bubba” comments.
Right after the election, I sat having dinner in a public restaurant, with the woman who would later become my wife, (she voted for Bill also). At the table across from us was one of those large church groups; the women with big Texas hair and all, who just must have had their nightly sermon. They were loud in exchanging Clinton jokes: “Did you hear this one about Buba?” Or, “How about Hilary going to the doctor to find out that she had AIDS.” Good upstanding Christian folk they were. Those of us who voted for Bill just sat and smiled at first, thinking it was just a little of the typical, but harmless “sour grapes.” This was despite the fact that a brilliant man, a Rhodes Scholar, and the current president, was constantly berated as a “Bubba.”
Later many conservatives took freedom of speech even further: Hilary was a “lesbian,” and a hanger-on, because she was married to the “prez.” They were both thieves, stealing furniture from the White House; they were swindlers, crooked lawyers. The talk went on unabated. It was after all, Freedom of speech. Then they were murderers - Vince Foster, killed by the Clinton “drug-lords” from the Ozarks. Bill was a rapist, a molester of women. Much of this nonsense was reported in the mainstream media, and most of it unfounded. Yet that did not stop, CBS, CNN, FOX. Really? And there was an outrage that someone (Dan Rather) made an accusation on CBS that George II used his influence to get out of going to Vietnam. You would think the guy just called the prez a “murderer,” or something. Yes, I guess freedom of speech is truly a conservative value - exclusively, it would appear. So now the other shoe has fallen. Those of us who endured eight years of “Bubba calling” are enjoying our turn at Freedom of speech. But the term that is popular these days is “Bush bashing.” Some of us would rather call it what it is: politics – pure and simple. It is a time-honored, American, yet very powerful tradition of speaking out against political foes, regardless of whom they happen to be. And as someone once remarked: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
But this tirade is really just to get some sort of handle, or perspective, on the whole issue of freedom of expression and what can be said and who can say it. So, who is Matthew Lyon? He was one of the leaders of the Revolutionary generation. He fought in the Revolution under Ethan Allen, and afterwards became a congressman from Vermont. But during the crisis with France in 1798, he was convicted, and sent to prison for writing a piece in the “Vermont Journal” which dared to criticize John Adams, who was then president. But that did not stop him from being reelected by his state while he was serving his sentence.
It was under one of the new laws, passed by the Federalist government, which forbade anyone from saying, or writing anything against the government and creating “sedition” against it. The laws were called the “Sedition Laws of 1798.” But wasn’t John Adams a “lover of liberty” and one of those Founders who believed in personal freedom? Well yes, but nevertheless, he signed a set of laws which was a direct affront to the Bill of Rights. Jefferson and Madison went to work on what would later become the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions to refute what Adams and the Federalists had crafted.
It seems odd to us today that a tavern keeper could be arrested, convicted and fined a few months’ wages just for commenting in public that John Adams had a “big ass” but it really happened during 1798 in New Jersey. And this was under the watch of the Founders themselves! But the Sedition Acts proved to be a large part of the undoing of the Federalist Party, just as Jefferson predicted to Madison that it would.
But I would like you to consider one of the most radical founders of them all: Ben Franklin. The name Franklin is English, and in the late Middle Ages it meant literally “freeman.” It was a name that Franklin’s family chose for itself because it described how they conducted themselves. There is story of how one of Franklin’s forefathers found himself in trouble with the English authorities for writing disparaging poems about the King and the local lords. So it was no surprise that the family would eventually settle in New England, to gain economic, political and religious freedom, as many Puritans in England had sought. He became one of the sharpest pens and wits of the Revolutionary generation (and that’s saying quite a lot). When the Quakers were “brazen” enough to bring up the issue of slavery before the new government after 1789, they were met with a “great wall of silence” by many of the Founders. But Franklin, then dying, had himself carried to the congressional debate over the issue over slavery, to say his piece about how America could not be truly free until the abolition of slavery occurred. It was his last public appearance, but a mighty and noble one. What Franklin did and said was unpopular during his time. But that never stopped him. So why should it stop us now?
The fact remains that we enjoy a great amount of latitude in our freedom of speech today. But the question still remains: Is freedom a conservative value? Those of you with enough fortitude, bearing with the limits of my inadequate writing skills and the ponderous length of this tirade, probably have convictions of your own.