PDF version

ITLT-2-E – If I may be so bold as to say…

One would think it was a done deal, at least here in the US. The Constitution itself guarantees freedom of speech in the First Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights. But this question of freedom of speech has become one of the hot button issues stirring up American society in recent years. 

The First ten Amendments to our constitution are known as our Bill of Rights, and the first of these amendments says “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.”

In setting up the new country they named the United States of America, the first concern of the founders was to guarantee freedoms concerning religion, speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government. The amendment forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and from restricting an individual's religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government. 

Today the issue is wrapped up and packaged under the term “cancel culture”.  Individuals, and even corporations, that are perceived as holding views contrary to those of a large segment of the population are “cancelled”. Companies are boycotted; actors and performers are blacklisted; speakers at universities are declared “persona non grata” because their views are not in accord with what I call the “textus receptus” of the vociferous. They write the script and shout down anyone who refuses to read from it.

All this has engendered a new term in our language. Those who deem themselves empowered to take these measures are called “woke”. It’s the past tense of the verb “to wake”. It implies that these people are awake and aware, in tune with the new reality of society. They therefore assume they have the right to cancel any others who are not in line with their authorized version of truth. This phenomenon has been applied to a range of topics from the interpretation of how America was colonized and constituted, to issues of race and racial equity; gender – transgender, gender neutral, gender identity; and abortion – the right to be or not to be. These are some of the issues currently on the frontline of the battle over freedom of speech. 

But what piqued my interest and started me thinking more about it in recent days was an item that came up on my phone’s newsfeed. To me, it was a clear illustration of the difference between proclaiming the principle of “free speech” and actually practicing it. Newsweek, CNN and other outlets disseminated tweets that included clips of a talk show on Ukrainian television. The show was aired on February 18th, which was just a week or so before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The panel represented a mix of views: participants included the former president of Ukraine, Poroshenko; there was a far-right politician Biletsky and a pro-Russian politician Murayev, who some western observers believe was being groomed by Russia to replace Zelensky as a puppet president.  The exchanges of words led to more direct expressions of opinions. So direct that, at one point, Biletsky got up and slapped Murayev’s face and then wrestled him to the floor and got him in a chokehold. The other participants of the panel jumped up and tried to break up the brawl. There before a live audience and all those watching at home, four men rolled on the stage, wrestling and yelling. It was a minute of mayhem. 

In the lower right-hand corner of the screen, the interpreter for the deaf was signing the debate and then the wrestling match ensued. No one was saying anything: everyone was otherwise engaged in their physical exercises. The poor interpreter just stood there expressionless and motionless, until one of the men yelled something and she dutifully interpreted that before reassuming her statue-like position. What was there for her to say? 

Several news outlets relayed the clip but none of them that I saw commented on the immense irony of the whole affair. The name of the TV program appeared in the logo in the lower left corner of the screen. While the men earnestly engaged in combat on the stage, the big letters in the corner of the screen proclaimed for all to read: “Svoboda Slovo”: “Freedom of Speech”