News
Public Interest
Jun. 25, 2002
High Court Misunderstands Origin of Thought, Freedom
Forum Column - By Cyrus S. Nownejad - The U.S. Supreme Court's majority ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act as overbroad and unconstitutional, has erroneously and misguidedly defined the beginning of thought and the beginning of freedom of speech.
Forum Column
By Cyrus S. Nownejad
The U.S. Supreme Court's majority ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act as overbroad and unconstitutional, has erroneously and misguidedly defined the beginning of thought and the beginning of freedom of speech. The ill-advised and injudicious definition in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion is that "speech is the beginning of thought" and "the right to think is the beginning of freedom." It is very important to correct the Supreme Court's understanding of the beginning of thought and freedom because the misdirected underlying philosophical concept of the court might wrongly guide or control conduct of present and future generations.
In Ashcroft, the majority's faulty and imprudent analytical definition of thought and freedom is found in the statements, "The government 'cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts' ... First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."
In fact, emotion is the beginning of thought, and freedom of speech is the beginning of freedom. It is of special interest to note that, in U.S. history, many Supreme Court justices, writers and philosophers have walked on essentially the same erroneous path as that defined in Ashcroft with respect to the interrelation of thought, freedom of speech and freedom.
For example, John Adams in 1765 wrote, "The jaws of power are always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing." Louis D. Brandeis in 1927 said, "They who won our independence ... believed that freedom to think as you will and speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth." Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1929 wrote, "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."
Moreover, Robert A. Jackson in 1950 opined, "Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it." Finally, William O. Douglas in 1952 wrote, "The Framers of the Constitution ... weighed the compulsions for restrained speech and thought against the abuses of liberty. They chose liberty."
To more precisely analyze the scientific, philosophical, societal and political interrelation among the concepts of thought, freedom of speech and freedom, the dictionary is a guiding start. The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2001, defines thought as "an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in mind; an idea or mental picture imagined and contemplated; one's mind or attention, an act of considering or remembering someone or something; an intention, hope or idea of doing or receiving something; the action or process of thinking; formation of opinion or the opinion so formed; careful consideration or attention; concern for another's well being or convenience." Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition, defines freedom as "The state of being free. A political right."
The right to think is not the beginning of freedom. The right and power to think and freedom of thought are inherently natural functions of one's normal brain beginning at birth, and they are not granted or restricted by any government, person or law. Science, technology or psychological brainwashing or other similar means could to some extent control or alter some people's mind or thought some of the time. However, by and large, no government, law, constitution or their enforcers have had the power to control mind or thought of all people.
Even dissenters in a society under totalitarian rule are free to think inwardly as they choose regardless of any governmental restriction. However, the dissenters do not have the right, power or freedom to express or communicate their dissenting thoughts outwardly through speech without the risk or fear of punishment. Therefore, the dissenters' inherent right and power to think is not the beginning of freedom.
Freedom of speech is the beginning of freedom. Freedom of thought without free speech is futile so long as it is dormant, unless it is viable and develops with the aim of achieving freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the right to express one's thoughts without governmental restriction on the contents thereof, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. "It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears," said Justice Louis D. Brandeis concurring in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). Speech is outward expression of thought. It is the restraint and restriction on speech, not on thought, that deprives a person of freedom.
Speech is not the beginning of thought. Emotion gives birth to thought. Emotion is a fundamental dimension and impetus of human entity. People communicate emotionally. Acts, events, steps, goals, formulas, plans, relations, behaviors, arts, policies, laws, politics, beliefs, philosophies, economics, sciences, technologies, achievements, results, court opinions and all other human endeavor, however logical they all may be or appear to be, stem and originate from emotion.
Consequently, emotion gives birth to and is the beginning of thought. Thought gives birth to and is the beginning of speech and logic. Logic justifies emotion. Speech is the outward expression of thought. Freedom of speech, not the right to think, is the beginning of freedom, contrary to the opinion in Ashcroft.
Cyrus S. Nownejad is a Los Angeles lawyer.
By Cyrus S. Nownejad
The U.S. Supreme Court's majority ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act as overbroad and unconstitutional, has erroneously and misguidedly defined the beginning of thought and the beginning of freedom of speech. The ill-advised and injudicious definition in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion is that "speech is the beginning of thought" and "the right to think is the beginning of freedom." It is very important to correct the Supreme Court's understanding of the beginning of thought and freedom because the misdirected underlying philosophical concept of the court might wrongly guide or control conduct of present and future generations.
In Ashcroft, the majority's faulty and imprudent analytical definition of thought and freedom is found in the statements, "The government 'cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts' ... First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."
In fact, emotion is the beginning of thought, and freedom of speech is the beginning of freedom. It is of special interest to note that, in U.S. history, many Supreme Court justices, writers and philosophers have walked on essentially the same erroneous path as that defined in Ashcroft with respect to the interrelation of thought, freedom of speech and freedom.
For example, John Adams in 1765 wrote, "The jaws of power are always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing." Louis D. Brandeis in 1927 said, "They who won our independence ... believed that freedom to think as you will and speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth." Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1929 wrote, "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."
Moreover, Robert A. Jackson in 1950 opined, "Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it." Finally, William O. Douglas in 1952 wrote, "The Framers of the Constitution ... weighed the compulsions for restrained speech and thought against the abuses of liberty. They chose liberty."
To more precisely analyze the scientific, philosophical, societal and political interrelation among the concepts of thought, freedom of speech and freedom, the dictionary is a guiding start. The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2001, defines thought as "an idea or opinion produced by thinking or occurring suddenly in mind; an idea or mental picture imagined and contemplated; one's mind or attention, an act of considering or remembering someone or something; an intention, hope or idea of doing or receiving something; the action or process of thinking; formation of opinion or the opinion so formed; careful consideration or attention; concern for another's well being or convenience." Black's Law Dictionary, 7th edition, defines freedom as "The state of being free. A political right."
The right to think is not the beginning of freedom. The right and power to think and freedom of thought are inherently natural functions of one's normal brain beginning at birth, and they are not granted or restricted by any government, person or law. Science, technology or psychological brainwashing or other similar means could to some extent control or alter some people's mind or thought some of the time. However, by and large, no government, law, constitution or their enforcers have had the power to control mind or thought of all people.
Even dissenters in a society under totalitarian rule are free to think inwardly as they choose regardless of any governmental restriction. However, the dissenters do not have the right, power or freedom to express or communicate their dissenting thoughts outwardly through speech without the risk or fear of punishment. Therefore, the dissenters' inherent right and power to think is not the beginning of freedom.
Freedom of speech is the beginning of freedom. Freedom of thought without free speech is futile so long as it is dormant, unless it is viable and develops with the aim of achieving freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the right to express one's thoughts without governmental restriction on the contents thereof, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. "It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears," said Justice Louis D. Brandeis concurring in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927). Speech is outward expression of thought. It is the restraint and restriction on speech, not on thought, that deprives a person of freedom.
Speech is not the beginning of thought. Emotion gives birth to thought. Emotion is a fundamental dimension and impetus of human entity. People communicate emotionally. Acts, events, steps, goals, formulas, plans, relations, behaviors, arts, policies, laws, politics, beliefs, philosophies, economics, sciences, technologies, achievements, results, court opinions and all other human endeavor, however logical they all may be or appear to be, stem and originate from emotion.
Consequently, emotion gives birth to and is the beginning of thought. Thought gives birth to and is the beginning of speech and logic. Logic justifies emotion. Speech is the outward expression of thought. Freedom of speech, not the right to think, is the beginning of freedom, contrary to the opinion in Ashcroft.
Cyrus S. Nownejad is a Los Angeles lawyer.
#337294
Columnist
Daily Journal Staff Writer
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com