For the first time in history, our Republic witnessed the reading of the United States Constitution, albeit a sanitized version, on the floor of the House of Representatives. In a sad and tragic twist of fate, events the following day in Arizona called upon us to contemplate the corollary of both the First and Second amendments to that superlative document.
In the wake of tragedy, many may feel compelled to push for public policies that restrict certain rights affirmed by our Constitution. Some may argue that inflammatory rhetoric mustn’t be protected speech and therefore seek to have certain media censored from public discourse. Some may argue that inanimate objects are responsible for violence and therefore seek to restrict the very right that “shall not be infringed” even from lawful citizens on private property.
Existing laws limiting speech, press and access to arms must withstand strict scrutiny, and there are criminal and civil penalties for those who fall afoul of the law. I will welcome the day that extremist pull down their websites and fire-breathers put a sock in it. I wish anyone harboring thoughts of criminal intent would throw away any tool they would use in an unlawful manner. Yet we must not propose knee-jerk laws that unreasonably restrict free press, free speech, or the legitimate right to arms.
We as a nation hold dear certain fundamental rights and we must resist generating new and misguided laws that threaten our cherished liberties. However, those that preach hate or advocate the use of bullets over ballots deserve our unanimous condemnation. Our legitimate right to arms is for the defense of ourselves and our Republic, not for paltry, political “remedies.” Our right to speech and press is to enrich our public discourse, not to demonize and incite violence. We can change the channel. We can pressure advertisers. We can denounce thinly veiled calls to violence.
Massive social-science research shows the ineffectiveness of gun control laws in reducing crime and violence, yet uncompromising advocates simply ignore the results of criminological, historical and econometric studies by reputed scholars. Some may argue that we need a modern day “Sedition Act” to make it a crime to publish "false scandalous, and malicious writing" against the government or its officials as a response to contemporary blowhards on talk radio or cable news. Yet history teaches us that the original Sedition Act of 1798 was both blatantly unconstitutional and designed to stifle criticism.
The formation of public policy must be based on a pragmatic desire to reach achievable results. To improve our public discourse, diminish political vitriol toward our neighbors, and reduce violent crime, we must focus on the source of these phenomena. Implementing and expanding conflict resolution, character building, peace studies, community service, problem-solving, crime prevention, civic responsibility, firearm safety, and critical thinking in our educational system would be a good start.
