Freedom of Speech

Copernicus (which is a Latinized version of his original Polish name Mikolaj Kopernik) has gone down in history as the person who developed the heliocentric theory. That is, Copernicus developed a model of the solar system where the Sun was at the center and the planets revolved around it, instead of the old Aristotelean/Ptolemaic model where the Earth was at the center and everything else revolved around it.  Despite being a deeply religious man (an ordained canon of the Catholic Church), Copernicus’ work would be suppressed and censored by the Catholic Church and derided as heresy by Martin Luther. His master work, De revolutionibus orbum coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres), would be one of the most famous banned books of the 17th and 18th Centuries.

Like many ideas in science, Copernicus’ theory was neither entirely new (ancient Greek astronomers and medieval Arab astronomers both had heliocentric models) nor widely accepted at the time it came out. Copernicus’ book was not published until either right before he died or just after his death on May 24, 1543. It is believed that he never actually saw a copy of the book that he spent the last 30 years of his life finishing.

Two astronomers in the 17th Century picked up on Copernicus’ work and made it popular. One was a prominent German Protestant astronomer, Johannes Kepler, who discovered that the planets made orbits that were ellipses around the sun, not perfect circles, as Copernicus believed. The other was an Italian Catholic, Galileo Galilei, who used a newfangled device called the telescope, to discover that not only did the Earth rotate on its axis, but so did the other planets. And even the Sun! And not only did Earth have a Moon, but Jupiter had four of them.

Galileo Galilei was an Italian astronomer from the 1600s who caused a major controversy with the Catholic Church.

On 26 February 1616, Galileo Galilei was formally banned and banished by the Roman Catholic Church for teaching and defending the opinion that the Earth orbits the Sun. Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded during the trial.
It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

On April 12, 1633, Galileo was tried and found guilty of heresy against the Church.
When Galileo (1564-1642) first published his Dialogo in 1632, defending the Copernican heliocentric view of our cosmos, the Catholic Church put him under house arrest and banned not just the Dialogo but also all of Galileo’s earlier writings. This censorship only fueled the demand for his works and several editions of his writings were published in France, England and the Netherlands throughout the 17th century.

But as far as Italian editions were concerned, the 1710 printing of the Dialogo was only the second of its kind, due to the fact that it remained on the Index of Forbidden Books. And so it should not come as a surprise that an identifying printer’s mark or publisher’s device was missing from the volume. With this information missing, how do we know who was responsible for this clandestine undertaking? And that it had indeed taken place in Naples instead of Florence?

The sources which were consulted enlightened us to the fact that the introductory letter to the reader at the beginning of the volume provides us with an important clue: the signature Cellenio Zacclori is (with the exception of one missing letter) an anagram for Lorenzo Ciccarelli, a Neapolitan lawyer who ran a print shop in Naples that specialized in the publication of forbidden books.

According to Vincenzo Ferrone, there is evidence that Ciccarelli’s shop was tolerated by some of the more progressive members of the Catholic Church, which helps to explain how he was able to elude shut-down by the authorities.

Today, in 2023, free speech is under attack from all sides. By this I mean that the “left” has made it clear that “insults” (especially against Jews, homosexuals, transgenders, blacks, women, immigrants, any “minorities”, Muslims, etc.) will not be tolerated. Unfortunately, these people believe that every group or individual gets to decide what is or is not an “insult”, with the result being that free speech no longer exists in the West because of this extreme “political correctness”, as I call it.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. It is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. Disproportionate punishments are routinely meted out to targets of public shaming by institutional leaders conducting "panicked damage control". We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, thinkers, philosophers, politicians, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. In the last half decade, a number of figures have been shamed online for making comments considered offensive by some, including on topics of race, gender and sexuality. In some cases, employers took action against the individual after sustained and targeted criticism.

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.

People are being hounded for perceived moral slip-ups. It has become a modern-day witch-hunt of political correctness which has the most chilling effect on free speech and freedom of opinion. For example, in June 2020, the New York Times' opinion editor resigned amid outrage over a piece by a Republican senator calling for military forces to be sent to cities where anti-racism protests had turned violent. And in January of that same year, publisher Flatiron Books cancelled author Jeanine Cummins's tour after her novel American Dirt was strongly condemned for stereotypical descriptions of Mexicans.

During the recent covid-19 pandemic and surrounding debates, an older white American, who was simply trying to participate in the debate about how to avoid being infected with covid, threw out the idea that perhaps black Americans had higher rates of covid because they didn’t wash their hands as often as white Americans. This was just an idea, and democracies work when people are allowed to express their ideas, and debate them. Science works when scientists form a hypothesis around an idea and then test it. Unfortunately, the response from society to this man’s idea was to so demonize him that he was fired from his job and could not find another, was branded the worst sort of racist, and was ostracized and harshly “punished” by society at large. Anyone defending him was also punished and made to appear to be a racist of the worst kind.

This is such a good example of what is wrong with America and the world today: censorship pervades all facets of society, and freedom of speech, opinion and association is being abridged more and more each year. A “litmus test” of “political correctness” is being applied to anyone who participates in societal and political debates, and American society is becoming increasingly polarized – namely because absolute freedom of speech is no longer allowed. When people criminalize criticism, as certain groups of people have been doing in America for a half-century or more now, then polarization increases and society moves towards battle and civil war, rather than towards the peaceful co-existence that absolute freedom of speech allows.

Various politicized groups are now censoring free speech on any issue that upsets their belief structures, so much so that there is now a severe restriction of the debate about scores of cultural, social, economic and political issues – important issues which are on most people’s minds today.

Recent outcries on “racial justice” and “social inclusion regarding people who choose non-mainstream sexual and gender orientations” have fueled a stifling of open debate. There now exists a vogue for public shaming and ostracism and a blinding moral certainty over very controversial issues. The “politically correct” do not want a debate, they want blind obedience to and acceptance of their points of view.

On the right of the political spectrum, free speech is also under attack, with environmentalists and serious ecologically-minded scientists being censored, so that what they say or report does not harm powerful interests and businesses like the fossil fuel industry, or orthodox religion, etc.

Science needs the freedom and liberty to search for the Truth without fear of censorship or reprisal if the Truth does not fit with the ideological, political, economic, or religious beliefs of those who have and wield Power.

The first national government of the United States was determined by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The Confederation proved to be the wrong type of government for the thirteen states that then comprised the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation was drafted in 1777 and the last state ratified it in 1781. It went out of existence when the Constitution was adopted in 1789. This is one of the first examples of the people using their unalienable rights to alter or abolish government and institute a better one.

In 1887 a convention was called in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation. Delegates came from all the states except Rhode Island. Instead of revising the Articles of Confederation, the delegates, under the leadership of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Gouverneur Morris and George Washington, decided to write a constitution setting up a federal government for the states – a bold idea that no other country had ever tried before in human history. The writing of the Constitution was difficult as there were so many opposing ideas as to what should be done. These ideas were mostly settled by compromise. The document was principally written by Gouverneur Morris, and by July 2, 1788, ten states had ratified the Constitution and it was adopted.

It wasn’t until March 4, 1789, 13 years after the Declaration of Independence, that the Constitution of the United States of America went into effect and became the supreme law of the nation; and it was not until 1790 that all thirteen states had accepted it.

The Constitution is a contract between the federal government and the people of the states. As Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg Address, it is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Ours is a government by the consent of the people – a government agreed to by the people through a written contract called a constitution. A document of this kind, like any contract, is only as good as the people make it. It must be enforced or it becomes meaningless.

Some of the ways that we, as citizens, can make our Constitution effective are:

By being well informed as to what our government is doing;

By taking an interest in and voting in all elections;

By writing letters expressing our opinions to our elected officials;

By participating in the political debate publicly;

By taking court action against any law that we feel is not constitutional;

By signing petitions – written statements supported by signatures of citizens that are either for or against some action taken or about to be taken by our elected officials.

Ensuring that our government operates in the best interests of all the people of the United States is the responsibility of all citizens. We must accept this responsibility to remain a free people and to enjoy the type of government our Constitution enables us to have.

We are, by and large, willing to obey voluntarily decisions made according to the rules embodied in the written constitution, for instance, laws passed by Congress and signed by the President as prescribed by Articles I and II of the Constitution. This willingness to obey decisions reached by means of accepted procedures is called “legitimacy”. Governmental decisions that are reached according to rules we believe to have been established by the written constitution are vested with legitimacy. The written Constitution shapes and determines our beliefs about what government may legitimately do. Over two centuries of living with the Constitution have produced a “living Constitution”, shaped both by amendments to it, and by our court’s interpretation of it.

In America, we live in an indirect democracy – we elect representatives – people who speak and act for us – to make our wishes known in government. We believe our Constitution to be primary as regards the relationships between human beings and government.

Obviously, everyone cannot be satisfied with government all of the time. We live in an age which has only two powerful political parties, and many of the same powerful groups have a great deal of say in controlling what each major political party can say and do, and keep political power. Individuals, sadly have become lost in this group power dynamic.

Because we are one nation and one people, we have a constitution which guarantees all people, even those whose chosen candidate in an election loses, certain unalienable rights. Elected representatives represent all of the people in their districts, both democrats, republicans, independents, ecologists, and even those who do not vote. Because we believe in peaceful transition from one government to another, we learn to accept that a representative must represent us, even if we hold different beliefs. A person whose candidate loses must wait until the next election to have another chance to try to elect a candidate of his or her choice to public office.

Thus, it is all the more crucial that individual, unalienable rights are respected, whether or not one feels represented by the elected representatives.

First among these unalienable rights is Liberty, which the Constitution has defined as:

Freedom of Religious Belief,

Freedom of Speech,

Freedom of the Press,

Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, and

Freedom to Criticize and Petition the government to set right or remedy our grievances or complaints.

By allowing these freedoms, and by enumerating them as unalienable rights, the Constitution sets forth a plan by which citizens can co-exist peacefully with one another, without violence, and without civil war. Thus, it is critical that these Freedoms never be denied to the people.

On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee submitted a resolution to the Continental Congress declaring the Independence of the United States. The resolution was referred to a committee consisting of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingstone, who were directed to draft a declaration embodying this resolution.

The committee reported its draft on June 28; the declaration was adopted on July 2 and signed on July 4.

THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Here in this beautiful document, we have the enumeration of unalienable rights – rights which cannot be taken away or separated from man; namely:

 the right to life

the right to liberty

the right to the pursuit of happiness, and

the right to alter or abolish their government and institute new government