Complete freedom of speech does not exist

By LEO F. ARNONE

I contend there is no such thing as complete freedom to do or say whatever one wishes, unless one lives alone on an island separated from others.

For example, when a man and a woman make a commitment to each other in marriage, they sacrifice the freedom to engage in extra-marital affairs. When a group of people come together, as in the military, individual freedoms are sacrificed for the good of that community. The military could not survive nor function if every soldier were given complete freedom to do or say whatever he or she wanted.

Even in civil law we do not enjoy complete freedom of speech. For example, it is against the law for an individual to cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If a person did, he or she could be arrested for inciting a riot and endangering public safety.

Again, one may claim the freedom to play heavy metal at a high volume. But if a person exercised this freedom at 2 a.m., he or she would be arrested for disturbing the peace. And again, if a person said to another, "I'll kill you!" that person could be arrested for terroristic threats.

With these laws already in effect, we must conclude there is no such thing as complete freedom of speech. And an individual's freedom of speech ends when it infringes upon the rights of others.

If everyone enjoyed complete freedom of speech we would have anarchy.

Direct your thoughts now to the idea of freedom of speech as expressed in art. Just as there are restrictions in speech, there are already restrictions in speech as expressed in art. The recent news surrounding The People vs. Larry Flynt is a case in point.

It is an example of pornography being passed off as freedom of speech expressed in art. Because of far-reaching interpretations of the Constitution, pornography is protected under the First Amendment. Thus, the state has made it perfectly legal to publish pornography under the guise of "art" and freedom of speech.

Because there is a great deal of money to be made in this industry, many people are willing to pose for pornography. But from the writings of Sr. Mary Rose McGeady of Covenant House, one learns that many children and young adults are forced to pose for such "art" to survive.

Unfortunately, when the poor have no skills to offer, they offer the only thing they have, namely, their bodies.

With the First Amendment's allowance of pornography under the guise of freedom of speech, an industry subject to abuse is created. Nevertheless, the state's intention is to allow its citizens the freedom to buy or not buy such a product.

Consider, however, that if an adult were to give pornographic "art" to school children, the state would have that person arrested for the corruption of a minor.

There is blatant inconsistency here. Because it is against the law to expose children to such "art," the state, on one hand, seems to demonstrate a belief that pornographic "art" does indeed corrupt the morals of a minor.

Are we to conclude that adults are incapable of having their morals corrupted by pornography? On the other hand, the state's permission and protection of pornography as "art" and as freedom of speech seems to indicate the state does not believe that there is anything inherently wrong or detrimental to the common good.

If the state believes this, then why does the it ban pornography from children?

My point in bringing up the problem of pornography is to demonstrate that civil law already sets restrictions on the freedom of speech as expressed in art.

If the state can set up such limitations so as to protect a portion of the common good, then it can and ought to protect all portions of the common good.

I cannot imagine that the state, the University or any rational person would so easily and readily tolerate the public display of a swastika overshadowing the Jewish Torah, nor would they readily accept as "artistic" freedom of expression the face of Martin Luther King Jr. inside a gun's cross-hairs. (Last year I saw a Ku Klux Klan flyer portraying this image with the phrase "our dream came true" beneath it.)

Sensible people would not accept these images because they invoke hatred and advocate bigotry.

Concerning the recent events at the University, an art student took the most Catholic of symbols, a statue of Mary, and placed it within a larger-than-life bloody vagina surrounded by pubic hair.

Regardless of what statement this student was trying to make, the "art" offended a portion of the community that makes up the overall common good of society.

If the state concerns itself with the possible corruption of the morals of minors, why are the state and the University not also concerned with the religious convictions of members of the common good?

I do not intend the state should promote one denomination, but that it not permit and promote a particular denomination to be desecrated and defamed in the name of freedom of speech under the guise of art.

One of the principles upon which our country was founded was the principle of "freedom of religion" not "freedom from religion."

This means that the various religious denominations are free to practice their faith without the pressure of being defamed.

By allowing the student's "art" to be publicly displayed unchallenged, the state, which funds the University with tax dollars, appears to allow the defamation of a denomination, namely, the Catholics.

All denominations, including Catholics, have a Constitutional right to demand from the state and the University policies and laws to protect them from defamation.

Normally, we trust individuals to exercise the human traits of prudence, practical reason, common sense and maturity in determining how they express themselves.

But since recent history has demonstrated that not every individual exercises these human qualities, policies and laws must take their place so that all portions of the common good are protected.

Indeed, freedom of speech is a privilege of our country, but this freedom was not intended to permit or promote the defamation of any religious denomination whether in print, in speech, or in art.