Cut, Baby, Cut

Published in the Braintree Observer Forum on March 1, 1970
Written by Donald W. Smith

Recently we read of American students and others extolling the utopian life in Cuba after contributing to its economic vitality via cane cutting. The counterpart of this was the continued indictment of United States “Imperialism.”

Held high as the desired goal of much youthful effort is the “revolution” which will bring justice and uniform prosperity to this land. The principles of our democracy and its leaders are deceptively characterized as those which seek world conquest; the impoverishment of the many and the enrichment of the few. We witness little minds in possession of big words who somehow convince the unthinking that “Capitalism” is a dirty word and the desire to administer justice for nations under attack is “Imperialism.”

This kind of phenomenon brings to mind a question: should a person who denies the validity or desirability of a freedom be permitted to act on the basis of that freedom? I refer now to Article I in the Amendments to the Constitution, the third clause, “Congress shall make no law prohibiting … or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This is one of the ground rules of our democracy. It permits It anyone to say anything and just about everything is being said.

Now what is the situation which gives rise to our question? We have in our midst those who desire Marxism in preference to Democracy. This they seek to establish by revolution. The Marxist philosophy does not permit “freedom of speech.” Yet, in our land this right of free speech is a principle which is being thoroughly exploited to accomplish the demise of democracy.

It would appear to be clear that those who advocate Communism insist that freedom of speech is a dangerous power to place in the hands of the people. It is non-existent in Totalitarian States. While affirming that individuals should be denied this “right” the glib revolutionists stand firmly on this constitutional privilege and cry, “Down with America.” By what logic can such dissenters claim consistency? Indeed, they cannot.

Our enemies, be they ingenuous, idealist students, or hard-core Marxists, care not for consistency and justice. Their goal is world conquest. A ground rule in this onslaught is “use every means available.” It would be their obvious belief that if a nation is foolish enough to grant “free speech” then use that freedom to the utmost. It matters not whether one agrees in principle. What matters is getting the job done; the job of “revolution.”

To even hint at the possibility of limiting free speech is startling to some. It is to tamper with the fundamentals. One must bear in mind, however, that the Constitution was framed on the assumption that the posterity of its framers would seek to preserve democracy. It was fervently hoped that free speech would be used by responsible people to perpetuate our governmental system.
A new factor, however, has been introduced. Free speech is being used to undercut the very system which espouses it. Perhaps it is time to re-think the traditional all-inclusive granting of this right.

To consider the wisdom of limiting free speech suggests the following: when a governmental system embraces a principle which can be used to accomplish its destruction, then the need for more rigid standards is indicated.

In Article III, Section III, of the United States Constitution we read, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying of war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” There is something strangely analogous to treason in working diligently through free speech to empower our enemies. This would even appear to be giving them “aid and comfort.” If “speech” is treasonous, then on what basis is it permitted? Could it be that cane-cutting is “giving them (our enemies) aid and comfort?” Could this be treason?