''The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. . . . To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord and even offensive utterance. [ But it is ] not a sign of weakness but of strength.''
Cohen v. California
So tell me that it isn’t happening. Let’s quit dancing around using metaphors and call it like it is. Any time the discord is stifled it’s really censorship. By restricting the discord, by suppressing the discord we fail our democracy. Even Judge Robert Bork felt that "The First Amendment is about how we govern ourselves.” That governess involves free expression, debate and discord.
In the simplest of all terms any speech that is political in nature makes our democracy unique and when speech is quelled our identity as the home of democracy is tarnished. Our greatness is diminished even more. It was the desire to have the debate and discord that lead to the First Amendment to the constitution. It was the fear of repression of that speech that placed our democracy at the greatest risk.
Thus was born the fourth estate once thought the protector of free speech, the purveyor of the discord, the keeper of the public trust. Judge Robert Bork in the quote above ended that quote with "… not about how we titillate ourselves…" It seems that the fourth estate now equates their profit over the First Amendment and the democracy.
I do know that Robert Bork wasn’t a fan of the discord or debate or the artistry of free speech, a quote can convey more that the thought of the one who is quoted it can spark an idea, a debate, a quest. I also know that change starts with an idea, the truth, and a movement. We cannot allow our democracy to wither and fade under the guise of profits over truth.
Discuss?