Tweet
Speech in the United States falls into three broad groups, separated by two demarcations. There have always been debates as to where those lines should be drawn, but I think everyone understands they exist.
The first line separates what is protected under the First Amendment from what is not. The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering in the speech of its citizens. The primary intent was to keep the government from punishing political and religious speech it did not agree with. It was driven by the experiences of the founders under a monarchy and the early citizens who had experienced religious persecution. But it was written to be very broad, essentially granting citizens the freedom to express themselves as they wished.
As with all rights, however, there are limits. Time and time again, the courts have upheld that some speech is not protected, including speech that incites people to break the law (including violence), true threats, defamation, obscenity, child pornography, false advertising, speech integral to criminal conduct, and incitement to suicide, to name a few. The specific list changes, and is subject to debate, but there is most definitely speech that is NOT protected by the First Amendment. The courts have repeatedly affirmed this.
The second line separates speech that is considered “socially acceptable” from speech that is not. Again, where that line is drawn can vary. Most of us would probably agree that calling someone a vulgar name or lying is not socially acceptable speech. I suspect most of us would also agree that praising someone or describing a sunset is perfectly acceptable speech.
Let’s put all of human speech on a continuum, with the most socially acceptable and most protected speech to the right and the least socially acceptable and least protected to the left. I realize “left” and “right” are loaded words these days, but I am referring to direction - not political leaning. As we move from left to right on our line, we will encounter the “protected/not-protected” line first. Some distance further, we will encounter the socially-acceptable/not-socially-acceptable line.
Between these two lines is an important body of speech. It is the speech that is protected by the First Amendment but is widely seen as “socially unacceptable.” This is also a space of enormous discord in modern America. Why? Because speech that was once considered “socially unacceptable” has been increasingly normalized in our society. Politeness has been labeled “politically correct.” Name calling that is barely above what you would hear in an elementary school playground is now regularly bandied about at political rallies, and even in the halls of Congress. Lying is no longer verboten in the public sphere: it is embraced and encouraged as a political tool. A politician who lies and is caught lying is no longer at risk of losing their political career; as long as they double down and repeat the lie over and over, they are lauded and praised. The lie is taken up as “the new truth,” even in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. It used to be that trolling was considered a bad thing, a sign that the person doing the trolling was morally compromised. Now it is a badge of honor. It is something to be aspired to. Even repeated “slips,” where Nazi-like propaganda gets injected into a major candidate’s campaign is no longer a death knell for the candidate.
Trump did not invent this world. Lying, calling names, trolling, and even Nazi-like propaganda existed long before Trump. No - Trump did not invent any of this. What he did was normalize it. What he did was demonstrate that such behavior is becoming of a President of this country, and a candidate for that office. He has appealed to the most base nature in all of us and he found a willing audience, ironically, in the party of “family values,” “law and order,” and “moral rectitude.”
Today, there is nothing that Mr. Trump can say that will alienate his base. They will simply excuse the behavior and eventually copy it. There is nothing Mr. Trump can do that will alienate his base. They will find a way to rationalize any act. Each new low simply finds new rationalizations as Mr. Trump steadily works the entire Republican/conservative part of our country deeper and deeper into behaviors they once would have considered “immoral,” but now embrace and cheer. I am not even certain that they can see the path they are on. This is why I believe that the MAGA base is essentially a cult of personality. I can think of nothing that will shake this core loose from its leader.
That leaves the rest of us. The only way to ensure that the slide towards the dark side of human nature does not continue is to show Mr. Trump the door this fall. If you are a moderate, and still thinking about how to cast your vote, please look very carefully at the path this nation has trod since May of 2015, and think very hard before you cast that vote. Mr. Trump deserves neither our allegiance nor our loyalty. He deserves to be told, “we are better than this - and we will no longer walk this road.” Once he is gone, we will have an enormous amount of work to do to return to some level of “normalcy” and perhaps even draw closer to the nation we all believe we can be.
The first line separates what is protected under the First Amendment from what is not. The First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering in the speech of its citizens. The primary intent was to keep the government from punishing political and religious speech it did not agree with. It was driven by the experiences of the founders under a monarchy and the early citizens who had experienced religious persecution. But it was written to be very broad, essentially granting citizens the freedom to express themselves as they wished.
As with all rights, however, there are limits. Time and time again, the courts have upheld that some speech is not protected, including speech that incites people to break the law (including violence), true threats, defamation, obscenity, child pornography, false advertising, speech integral to criminal conduct, and incitement to suicide, to name a few. The specific list changes, and is subject to debate, but there is most definitely speech that is NOT protected by the First Amendment. The courts have repeatedly affirmed this.
The second line separates speech that is considered “socially acceptable” from speech that is not. Again, where that line is drawn can vary. Most of us would probably agree that calling someone a vulgar name or lying is not socially acceptable speech. I suspect most of us would also agree that praising someone or describing a sunset is perfectly acceptable speech.
Let’s put all of human speech on a continuum, with the most socially acceptable and most protected speech to the right and the least socially acceptable and least protected to the left. I realize “left” and “right” are loaded words these days, but I am referring to direction - not political leaning. As we move from left to right on our line, we will encounter the “protected/not-protected” line first. Some distance further, we will encounter the socially-acceptable/not-socially-acceptable line.
Between these two lines is an important body of speech. It is the speech that is protected by the First Amendment but is widely seen as “socially unacceptable.” This is also a space of enormous discord in modern America. Why? Because speech that was once considered “socially unacceptable” has been increasingly normalized in our society. Politeness has been labeled “politically correct.” Name calling that is barely above what you would hear in an elementary school playground is now regularly bandied about at political rallies, and even in the halls of Congress. Lying is no longer verboten in the public sphere: it is embraced and encouraged as a political tool. A politician who lies and is caught lying is no longer at risk of losing their political career; as long as they double down and repeat the lie over and over, they are lauded and praised. The lie is taken up as “the new truth,” even in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. It used to be that trolling was considered a bad thing, a sign that the person doing the trolling was morally compromised. Now it is a badge of honor. It is something to be aspired to. Even repeated “slips,” where Nazi-like propaganda gets injected into a major candidate’s campaign is no longer a death knell for the candidate.
Trump did not invent this world. Lying, calling names, trolling, and even Nazi-like propaganda existed long before Trump. No - Trump did not invent any of this. What he did was normalize it. What he did was demonstrate that such behavior is becoming of a President of this country, and a candidate for that office. He has appealed to the most base nature in all of us and he found a willing audience, ironically, in the party of “family values,” “law and order,” and “moral rectitude.”
Today, there is nothing that Mr. Trump can say that will alienate his base. They will simply excuse the behavior and eventually copy it. There is nothing Mr. Trump can do that will alienate his base. They will find a way to rationalize any act. Each new low simply finds new rationalizations as Mr. Trump steadily works the entire Republican/conservative part of our country deeper and deeper into behaviors they once would have considered “immoral,” but now embrace and cheer. I am not even certain that they can see the path they are on. This is why I believe that the MAGA base is essentially a cult of personality. I can think of nothing that will shake this core loose from its leader.
That leaves the rest of us. The only way to ensure that the slide towards the dark side of human nature does not continue is to show Mr. Trump the door this fall. If you are a moderate, and still thinking about how to cast your vote, please look very carefully at the path this nation has trod since May of 2015, and think very hard before you cast that vote. Mr. Trump deserves neither our allegiance nor our loyalty. He deserves to be told, “we are better than this - and we will no longer walk this road.” Once he is gone, we will have an enormous amount of work to do to return to some level of “normalcy” and perhaps even draw closer to the nation we all believe we can be.
, then I win.
Comment