The concept of self government is alluring. Meiklejohn’s contention that there are two distinct types of liberty bases itself on the assumption that the self governed will be able to keep in check and on top of it’s imposed, necessary physical government, and that our first amendment right, though pliable, is one of the basic power checking devices we have. Free speech is necessary for a democracy to work.
Meiklejohn’s argument deals with the issue of self government by comparing a democracy to despotism, saying plainly that free men do not submit to alien control and that, in America, the balance of control is assumed to be non-partisan. If this is not the case, and one group controls what can and cannot be done, then it becomes impossible to be self-governing because one has submitted themselves to the control of what is assumed to be majority thought. The counter-argument made by Carr is that although we as Americans may be the governed and the governors, self government has no validity when it is backed by physical government, because the purpose of government is to control the populace, and no matter how many freedoms we are given,
The government retains the right to take them. Maybe it is because of the age that we live in, but since Tipper Gore, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, and fresh new F.C.C. regulations, Carr’s asertations are perhaps not as “radically false” as they were in 1948. Meiklejohn’s contention that the inner relationship of men to themselves cannot be expressed by forces or compulsions rhetorically idealizes his argument somewhat, placing men above their instincts, and his call for less science and more soul searching underlines his idealistic nature.
Meiklejohn raises good points with his argument for two separate types of liberty. The idea is that while one individual has rights that are inalienable, if the majority consent of people (i.e. the government) is to limit those rights, the individual is to adhere to the majority ruling, even though it may seem as an imposition of individual rights. The example that he uses of a town meeting, where the meeting is called to order and chaired by a chosen individual, and everyone enters into an unspoken pact to abridge their speech unless directly chosen to speak, is a good metaphor for the idea of self governed free speech, but is that what the first amendment states or is it simply our interpretation of what these rights should be in a society that is ever changing and re-forming it’s governmental structure. The contention I have with this example, is that it seems to me that this town meeting is structured very similar to another sort of meeting the founding fathers were fond of, Church. I know Meiklejohn mentions church as a place where it is normal for one to suspend their personal freedoms of speech and give the floor to the authority, but I think he fails to realize that this model is much closer to his townhall example, and perhaps an older precedent. In chuch, participants suspend their freedoms because the speaker is a representative of God, and most religious people believe that God ‘s voice is the truth. So too, does the American suspend his rights in accordance to self government, believing that whomever is in charge will be on the side of truth. This paradox deserves more attention. The framers of the constitution, basing the idea of self government on the back of a religion , also based into our rights as Americans the assumption that a self governing man would be a god-fearing man, and that fear would and perhaps ethically should overshadow the government of the people. Thus we have freedom if we are willing to respect the authority of our government, and are able to assume that the government is giving us the truth. So, while someone of a dissenting opinion is free to give it without getting a punch in the nose, if the dissenting opinion is of the minority or even the assumed minority, their speech shall be abridged in order to allow someone with a more encompassing opinion to speak.
Meiklejohn comes to the crux of his argument at the end of part five, where he states that the first amendment does not forbid the abridging of individual speech, but it does forbid the abridging of the freedom of speech. This seems to mean, certainly more now that in 1776 or 1948, that this dual nature of our free speech is still at the mercy of the government, with individual free speech being regulated to those who can afford to print their own newspapers or rent out a hall to give their views and thus avoid infringement on their free speech. All men have the right to stand and yell obscenities at a tree, but when a group is formed, self submission must be attained and attendees must give their attention to the person who “has the mic” This is an excellent argument for comics who wish to give their hecklers what for, but as a representational method, individual free speech tends to be pointless and selfserving unless there is an attempt by all to internalize and logically anylize each persons different opinion. In American society, torn by partisan rhetoric as it was at the time of it’s founding, there is less chance for anylization and more for seperation when unlike ideas clash.
Meiklejohn’s philosophy, especially when he mentions the government promoting free speech, still seems to be serving to the interest of the government and it’s right to govern our films, art, music, media, and speech. As Ira Glass would put it it’s the “ Difference between theory and practice.” Even in a self governing society, people who are asked and given the right to speak are shouted and booed by their contemporaries, even without government instigation, and without the citizens being able to adhere to the basic principle that every opinion, no matter how inflammatory or rhetorical, is equal, we will continue to live under false pretenses. The foremost being, I think, that every idea is equal and deserves to be heard. Ideas that deserve to be heard but have no backing are sidelined for less logical thoughts that have support.
Free speech is undoubtably important in a democracy, the opposing view must always have a medium so that the people can decide for themselves what the truth is. Unfortunatly the routine “abridgement” of that right has left
Meiklejohn’s argument deals with the issue of self government by comparing a democracy to despotism, saying plainly that free men do not submit to alien control and that, in America, the balance of control is assumed to be non-partisan. If this is not the case, and one group controls what can and cannot be done, then it becomes impossible to be self-governing because one has submitted themselves to the control of what is assumed to be majority thought. The counter-argument made by Carr is that although we as Americans may be the governed and the governors, self government has no validity when it is backed by physical government, because the purpose of government is to control the populace, and no matter how many freedoms we are given,
The government retains the right to take them. Maybe it is because of the age that we live in, but since Tipper Gore, the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, and fresh new F.C.C. regulations, Carr’s asertations are perhaps not as “radically false” as they were in 1948. Meiklejohn’s contention that the inner relationship of men to themselves cannot be expressed by forces or compulsions rhetorically idealizes his argument somewhat, placing men above their instincts, and his call for less science and more soul searching underlines his idealistic nature.
Meiklejohn raises good points with his argument for two separate types of liberty. The idea is that while one individual has rights that are inalienable, if the majority consent of people (i.e. the government) is to limit those rights, the individual is to adhere to the majority ruling, even though it may seem as an imposition of individual rights. The example that he uses of a town meeting, where the meeting is called to order and chaired by a chosen individual, and everyone enters into an unspoken pact to abridge their speech unless directly chosen to speak, is a good metaphor for the idea of self governed free speech, but is that what the first amendment states or is it simply our interpretation of what these rights should be in a society that is ever changing and re-forming it’s governmental structure. The contention I have with this example, is that it seems to me that this town meeting is structured very similar to another sort of meeting the founding fathers were fond of, Church. I know Meiklejohn mentions church as a place where it is normal for one to suspend their personal freedoms of speech and give the floor to the authority, but I think he fails to realize that this model is much closer to his townhall example, and perhaps an older precedent. In chuch, participants suspend their freedoms because the speaker is a representative of God, and most religious people believe that God ‘s voice is the truth. So too, does the American suspend his rights in accordance to self government, believing that whomever is in charge will be on the side of truth. This paradox deserves more attention. The framers of the constitution, basing the idea of self government on the back of a religion , also based into our rights as Americans the assumption that a self governing man would be a god-fearing man, and that fear would and perhaps ethically should overshadow the government of the people. Thus we have freedom if we are willing to respect the authority of our government, and are able to assume that the government is giving us the truth. So, while someone of a dissenting opinion is free to give it without getting a punch in the nose, if the dissenting opinion is of the minority or even the assumed minority, their speech shall be abridged in order to allow someone with a more encompassing opinion to speak.
Meiklejohn comes to the crux of his argument at the end of part five, where he states that the first amendment does not forbid the abridging of individual speech, but it does forbid the abridging of the freedom of speech. This seems to mean, certainly more now that in 1776 or 1948, that this dual nature of our free speech is still at the mercy of the government, with individual free speech being regulated to those who can afford to print their own newspapers or rent out a hall to give their views and thus avoid infringement on their free speech. All men have the right to stand and yell obscenities at a tree, but when a group is formed, self submission must be attained and attendees must give their attention to the person who “has the mic” This is an excellent argument for comics who wish to give their hecklers what for, but as a representational method, individual free speech tends to be pointless and selfserving unless there is an attempt by all to internalize and logically anylize each persons different opinion. In American society, torn by partisan rhetoric as it was at the time of it’s founding, there is less chance for anylization and more for seperation when unlike ideas clash.
Meiklejohn’s philosophy, especially when he mentions the government promoting free speech, still seems to be serving to the interest of the government and it’s right to govern our films, art, music, media, and speech. As Ira Glass would put it it’s the “ Difference between theory and practice.” Even in a self governing society, people who are asked and given the right to speak are shouted and booed by their contemporaries, even without government instigation, and without the citizens being able to adhere to the basic principle that every opinion, no matter how inflammatory or rhetorical, is equal, we will continue to live under false pretenses. The foremost being, I think, that every idea is equal and deserves to be heard. Ideas that deserve to be heard but have no backing are sidelined for less logical thoughts that have support.
Free speech is undoubtably important in a democracy, the opposing view must always have a medium so that the people can decide for themselves what the truth is. Unfortunatly the routine “abridgement” of that right has left
Comments