“Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Expression”: not equivalent terms

As we approach the Fourth of July, I thought I’d take a semi-break and blog about some topics I sometimes refer to peripherally but don’t usually give full posts of their own. I’ve blogged about this topic several times (^{1, 2}, for example) in the past, but only within the context of posts dealing with slightly broader issues. That said…

I am frequently disgusted—almost daily—by the lying meme that the First Amendment guarantees a right to “freedom of expression” as first manufactured into Constitutional law by the Texas v. Johnson 1989 Supreme Court abortion. I am especially appalled by the degree to which people who claim to espouse so-called “conservative” values and who profess to honor the Constitutional foundations of the U.S. buy into this lie.

Folks, well-meaning though some sheeples’ rearticulation of the lying meme about “freedom of expression” in the First Amendment (or in some penumbra cast by, say, the Ninth) may be, grow up. Take your minds back from the jackasses, poltroons and devils you’ve allowed to decieve you: “expression” does not equal “speech”.

In an age when “expression” is a catchall for so-called “art” and non-speech grunts, groans squeals and inarticulate, unintelligible scribblings; for the throwing of feces and display of urine; for obscenity labeled “vagina dialogues” and whipped-cream-laden nudie shows and all the dumbass stunts of Hollyweirdites, Academia Nut Fruitcakes and Loony Left Moonbats that are NOT speech of any kind (though such dumbasses should be and sometimes do show themselves to be capable of speech), who possessing half the brains of a steamed head of cabbage could wittingly argue that these sorts of things were what the Framers meant when they wrote,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

An ass can express itself. (And many do, day in and day out.) But its expressions will lack the kind of informative detail that speech yields. It can shit on you or sit on you; it can kick you or lick you. These may certainly be expressions of something it feels, but none of those acts are speech or the equivalent of speech, and none of them reflect or communicate rational thought.

People, the framers believed, asserted and laid their lives on the line to affirm for future generations, that speaking (or writing) intelligible arguments, thoughts, concepts so as to communicate to one’s government or to the forum of public debate what those intelligible arguments, thoughts and concepts in ways that rational people could discuss and come to agreement about was and is an inviolable right. non-speech grunts, groans squeals and inarticulate, unintelligible scribblings, the throwing of feces and the display of urine simply are not the equivalent of rational, discoursive speech.

And anyone who says those things are the equivalent of speech is stupid or a liar. Or a stupid liar.

In fact, non-speech grunts, groans squeals and inarticulate, unintelligible scribblings don’t even meet the basic tests for language. And absent language, what meanings that are ascribed to non-speech grunts, groans squeals and inarticulate, unintelligible scribblings are entirely subjective, hence meaningless as a communication device. Language must at least possess phonemes (sounds or sound analogs such as writing), syntax (discernible, reproducible structure) and semantics (distinct, discrete meaning). And the greatest of these is language’s ability to convey meaning (semantics) so that in the interchange, the recipient is more likely than not to be able to discern the meaning of the sender.

Non-speech grunts, groans squeals and inarticulate, unintelligible scribblings, etc., simply do not contain all the essential elements required for language. Absent language, no speech.

It’s a simple concept, which is why Justice William Brennan had such a hard time with it in 1989. The dumbass.

All this to say, burning/desecrating a flag is NOT speech. The act may be accompanied by speech, but the act itself falls into the class of non-speech grunts, groans squeals and inarticulate, unintelligible scribblings that simply do not rise to the level of intelligible discourse.

And buying into Justice Brennan’s abortion of the Framers’ articulation is a stupid thing for folks who want to live under the Constitution.

And all this sound and fury in defense of non-speech grunts, groans squeals and inarticulate, unintelligible scribblings, etc., as supposedly “protected” expression (NOT speech!) goes hand-in-hand with direct assaults by the government and especially by the very Mass Media Podpeople, Academia Nut Fruitcakes and all manner of pseudo “liberals” on real speech… as long as it is rational, reasonable, factual and not in agreement with their feelings.⁴

(BTW, there are some artistic expressions that approach speech, but not even Sibelius’ Finlandia, which sparked riots in Finland under the harsh rule of Russia, was speech. Heck, even some popular “music” today that has “lyrics” doesn’t have enough intelligible content to qualify as speech, IMO. *heh*))

And a brief comment from Findlaw about the Framers’ consensus on the First Amendment as a footnote (thinking here of the recent NYT, LAT, et al trashing of tools being used for YOUR defense):

Insofar as there is likely to have been a consensus, it was no doubt the common law view as expressed by Blackstone. ”The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.”³

Playing with the press at Conservative Cat and TMH’s Bacon Bits.