December 11, 1998
OPINION
By Raoul Lowery Contreras
One of the most striking television advertisements in history was shown only once, during a Super Bowl, years ago and its impact went far beyond television. It showed people marching to the tune of a big brother, moving as ordered, until one of the people takes a hammer and chain and smashes the giant television screen from which came the orders. The target: IBM; the challenger, Apple Computer.
The ad was important because it demonstrated a profound respect for the underdog among many Americans, while it demonstrated that many other Americans are like sheep and follow each other like the proverbial lemmings over the cliff.
Example: There is the great disrespect that many, if not most Americans have for the Constitution, in particular, the Bill of Rights, specifically, the 1st Amendment.
All of this leads to a search for why most Americans don't believe in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, these amendments that were passed by the first Congress as part of the deal to ratify the Constitution.
For example, many surveys over the years conclude that most people don't believe in freedom of Speech or Expression as protected by the First Amendment in these words, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The 14th Amendment extended that protection to individuals in the several states, to protect them from the states.
Not everyone gets the word, of course. The Congress passed a law making it criminal to "advocate the violent overthrow of the government." It is speech to "advocate," yet they made such speech criminal and the American people fervently applauded that. The Supreme Court, however, junked that law because it did outlaw speech. It's criminal to try to physically overthrow the Government, but not to talk about it.
One, of course, does not have free speech in court. One swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If a person does not tell the truth, or makes a false statement, he can't be prosecuted for that because the courts have ruled that politicians have the right to lie, if they wish.
Free speech has also stood in the way of limiting campaign contributions for the simple reason, the courts have ruled, that one is denied his full exercise of free speech if she can't raise and spend whatever he can in a campaign.
Libel and slander laws protect non-public people from scurrilous attempts to demonize or criminilize them, but public people don't have the same rights to sue according to the famous "Sullivan vs. New York Times" decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964.
This brings us back to the Constitution and what it means. It exists to protect individuals from government of the majority. It is designed to protect the one single person from the government. It restrains Congress from making laws that curtail our freedom of speech and expression. It states that explicitly. It means that explicitly.
So why do so many Americans disregard the 1st Amendment? Why do so many run around complaining about those who do exercise free speech. Why do Congressmen, of all people, try to pass laws restricting someone else's speech?
Why did California do a silly thing like pass a law such as English as the official language of California. It even allows an individual to use the State if he or she wishes to enforce English as the official language of California. Funny, English is not the official language on all Californians. They must have forgotten the works in the Constitution about not abridging free speech. I haven't.
I may not be the one who smashes the Big Brother government, like they did in the Apple television advertisement. But I will speak up for the Constitution and against those who would treat us like lemmings. And, I will do so in two languages, English and Spanish, the California Constitution notwithstanding. If anyone has a problem with that, sue me.
Me defense is easy, it's the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Comprende?
Return to Homepage