opinion

There is no 'but' in our First Amendment rights

In the Press-Citizen, recently, appeared a letter from Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, in which he declared his intention to find a judge-proof way to criminalize desecration of the American flag. Many people agree with him, of course — including, unfortunately, many elected officials — but for the purposes of this article I'll regard him as the chief spokesman for that position.

In a single paragraph of that letter, Mr. Kaufmann parrots the three morally bankrupt pronouncements that his allies invariably bring to the argument. Then he tops it off with a coda so hypocritical and vainglorious that I literally turned my face away in disgust: "I value our First Amendment rights but just like you cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded movie theater, you should never, ever, be allowed to spit and stomp on our flag while protesting the funeral of someone who died fighting for our freedoms. …count on me to fight with a fiery passion to defend the honor of our flag and our fallen soldiers."

No, Mr. Kaufmann: You do not "value our First Amendment rights." Manifestly, you despise them. A single word — "but" — reveals your contempt for them.

But nothing, Mr. Kaufmann. BUT NOTHING.

Our First Amendment does not exist to protect expressions that most people approve of. Such speech needs no protection. The laws exist, rather, to protect expressions we abominate: expressions that would be deeply offensive to most sensible people. Without the First Amendment, the rest of the U.S. Constitution doesn't much matter. And yet it's the most universally despised item in the Bill of Rights: constantly attacked from left and right.

When we stand up for the First Amendment, we're almost never supporting noble sentiments. Ninety-nine times out of 100, we're standing up for someone who's desecrating a flag or writing pornography about Jesus. Your position, sir, and the position of your allies, is identical to that of infantile liberals who want to suppress expressions that offend them. Same argument.

If anything, liberals are a little less hypocritical, since most of them are frank in their hatred of free speech and a free press. They make no pretense of respecting the First Amendment.

Don't insult our intelligence with that false equivalency about yelling "fire." The consequences of yelling "fire" — if a stampede causes injuries or property damage, for example — might be punishable. If no stampede ensues, the worst that will happen is that the fire-yeller will be escorted out. Arguably, that fire-yeller is creating a hazard, but in what way does the flag-spitter create a hazard?

The flag-spitter hurts our widdoo feewings. That's all. Where's the threat? I'll tell you where the threat is: In the legislature, where elected officials pretend to display their patriotism by betraying America's dearest principles.

Waving dead soldiers at us, in support of your position, is despicable. Many Americans died in combat for no good reason, in wars that shouldn't have happened, but let's stipulate, for immediate purposes, that our fallen solders died "for our freedoms."

What freedoms, then, did our soldiers die for — if not for the right to engage in expressions decent people abhor? Codifying that right is the precise purpose of the First Amendment. Who dishonors the memory of our fallen soldiers, Mr. Kaufmann? Who desecrates the flag? The flag-spitter? Or you?

The flag-spitter can be shunned by freedom-loving Americans and dismissed as merely an annoyance. You, as an elected official with legislative powers, can't be. Mr. Kaufmann, you live in a country where a person has the right to spit on our flag. Be proud of that. Be ashamed if you would use your position to change that. Good God, sir, be ashamed.

Writers' Group Joseph Dobrian is author of the new novel, "Ambitions."