Thought about Hollywood and Free Speech
I am watching part of a documentary on TCM about the House Unamerican Activities Committee in 1951. A good example of how fear (legitimate) can lead us to violate the constitution. It also made me wonder if, had this not happened in this way, Hollywood today would not be so leftist. I think this event made Hollywood types feel like martyrs and gave them sympathy for themselves. Now they are reactionary against anything they see as "conservatism," although Congress going after them was not essentially conservative or constitutional.
Just to be clear, here is the First Amendment:
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.
Much misunderstanding has grown up around this statement, one of which is that we have freedom of thought and conscience and thus privacy. No such thing is said in the constitution. The Founders were smart enough to know that we can't see someone's thoughts, so there was therefore no reason to address them in the Constitution. Speech, free exercise of religion, press, assemble, and petition are all visible actions that can be tested and controlled (or thus inhibited by force). They may or may not come from inner conviction, and are usually assumed to do so. So, rights to conscience, free thought, and privacy are read into the Constitution and then allowed to mean all kinds of other things (abortion, most notably).
It is interesting that some of those called to testify because they were suspected as Communists agreed to go along with the government because they understood how bad Communism was. Elia Kazan was protested at an Oscar ceremony a few years ago because he was one who "turned," but he was a Greek immigrant who knew what he was running from. These men and women were caught between a rock and a hard place: fall away from the principle of the Constitution but also seem to support the enemy and totalitarianism. Interesting choice.
Just to be clear, here is the First Amendment:
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.
Much misunderstanding has grown up around this statement, one of which is that we have freedom of thought and conscience and thus privacy. No such thing is said in the constitution. The Founders were smart enough to know that we can't see someone's thoughts, so there was therefore no reason to address them in the Constitution. Speech, free exercise of religion, press, assemble, and petition are all visible actions that can be tested and controlled (or thus inhibited by force). They may or may not come from inner conviction, and are usually assumed to do so. So, rights to conscience, free thought, and privacy are read into the Constitution and then allowed to mean all kinds of other things (abortion, most notably).
It is interesting that some of those called to testify because they were suspected as Communists agreed to go along with the government because they understood how bad Communism was. Elia Kazan was protested at an Oscar ceremony a few years ago because he was one who "turned," but he was a Greek immigrant who knew what he was running from. These men and women were caught between a rock and a hard place: fall away from the principle of the Constitution but also seem to support the enemy and totalitarianism. Interesting choice.
Comments