Should the First Amendment really be limitless? Doesn’t there come a time when freedom of speech becomes so divisive, so hurtful, so violent, so disrespectful and so potentially explosive that restrictions need to be placed on its current free use?
For example, should there be no limits on the kind of gratuitous violence we see on television, at the movie theater or the computer? How does “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” serve any purpose other than to shock and to revel in the gory ripping and slashing of another human being? It’s common knowledge that impressionable children often act out what they see at home on the playground. Little Jimmy gleefully becomes Bruce Lee at recess when he leaps in the air and kicks Tommy in the stomach for no reason whatsoever other than to emulate his television hero as he whoops the “bad guy” to save the neighborhood.
The creators of these glorified violent productions are allowed to do so under the protection of the First Amendment. Billions of dollars are made in the name of freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Defenders would say “if you don’t approve, then don’t watch it.” But gratuitous violence is all around us — it’s hard to shut it out of our lives. Such self-indulgent violence isn’t allowed in Sweden. Even the slapstick cartoons most Baby Boomers grew up watching are forbidden in many cultures.
Recently, the American flag was burned at Hampshire College to protest the outcome of the presidential election. This act was very hurtful to the military community, especially to combat veterans and to family members whose loved ones returned home in coffins draped in that flag. When many of were growing up and charged with raising and lowering the flag at school, we risked losing this privilege for allowing any part of the flag to touch the ground. This was considered disrespectful. Our flag had to be handled and folded a certain way out of respect for the fallen and what it symbolized to us as a country. After all, it was “Old Glory.”
To suggest limits be placed on the First Amendment must seem outrageous to some, but there are many citizens who endorse this idea and who see it as a unifying proposition rather than a divisive one.
Brad Brigham
Colrain