Civilization Requires Balancing
In all of the debate on campus recently I sense a failure to recognize
a very important principle--no constitutional right is absolute.
If all rights were absolute and the individual reigned supreme, there would
be anarchy, for in such an environment, society could impose no rules whatsoever.
In order to create civil society, there is always a balancing of individual
rights and individual responsibilities to the greater society.
George Washington wisely recognized this point in his letter of transmittal
that accompanied the Constitution as it left the hands of the drafters
and was presented to the national congress and the states for adoption.
In that letter he observed: "Individuals entering into society must give
up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice
must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to
be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line
between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be
reserved..."
It is instructive, then, to consider the fact that by and large, the
document they produced left most of these decisions regarding balance to
the states and not the federal government. The idea of robust state and
local sovereignty was a critical element in the federal scheme to reduce
the possibility for tyranny.
So despite the clever taping of statuary on campus or the use of labels
such as "fascism," "paranoia" or any other pejorative that might be used,
of necessity, the process of drawing lines, imposing limits and balancing
competing interests inheres in the very nature of civilization. The proposition
of unlimited freedom has no historical, legal or rational support.
To illustrate, I presume those who honestly argue for no limits on speech
or expression would see nothing wrong with somebody putting on a live demonstration
in the quad about sexual intercourse for the scholarly purpose of improving
student technique. Or how about a public execution of a depressed and suicidal
freshman who has given his consent to the event for the scholarly purpose
of studying the psychological and/or political public response to such
an exhibition? There is no limit to the outer bounds of such absurdities
once one truly accepts the idea that there should be no limits imposed
on individual liberties.
In view of the foregoing, presumably all rational people would quickly
admit the need for limits. Then the meaningful debate should be over what
those limits should entail rather than calling people "extremists," "tyrants,"
"Gestapo," etc. for simply trying to consider the issue rationally.
I have far more to say on the subject than I can say here about Constitutionality,
alienability of rights, censorship vs. sponsorship, etc. For those willing
to consider the topic more thoroughly and carefully than mere sound bites,
quips, and insults, I suggest you access my faculty web site at (http://www.business.suu.edu/business/fac/lewis_t/internetpornography.htm)
to obtain more information.
Tim Lewis