OCR Text |
Show Free Speech The writer of an article in yesterday's Chronicle said, "Free speech has always undergone curtailment during a time of war. And this is a time of war." We assume, from the tune of the entire article, that he meant that the "Liberals" or new-left or whatever they are called who are opposing certain actions of the government should be shut up. But why? Leaving the question of politics aside, ignoring the source of the comments, why should the government curtail free speech in time of war? The Constitution, Con-stitution, in referring to the matter of free speech, says, "Congress shall make no law . . ." Not "no law in time of peace," or "no law except in extenuating circumstances," but NO LAW. It's true that laws have been made, and it's probably true that laws will be made, but that does not make those laws correct. We cannot agree that when a government commits itself to war it must suspend the philosophies that have guided it previously. And a government certainly must protect itself, but our government is committed to protecting pro-tecting itself only when there is "clear and present danger." Before free speech is curtailed, or before one side 'or . the other suggests that it be curtailed, perhaps there ought to be an answer to this question: Which is more clear and present danger the opposition to a war or the opposition to the income tax which supports that war? Whose speech will be curtailed first in this time of war? |