I am astonished by the recent outcry from those who feel that the views of Michael Moore’s "Fahrenheit 911" are seditious and that he should personally be admonished or as one letter writer to [a local newspaper] recently put it, "The only thing you should think about is how film director Michael Moore is allowed in this country." While one may or may not agree with Moore, his right to express his views are paramount to this country’s ideals and traditions.
Whether Mr. Moore’s opinions are accepted or rejected is a decision for the marketplace of ideas to sort out. The same principle applies to Bruce Springsteen, the Dixie Chicks, Linda Ronstadt or any other U.S. citizen who, because they may command an audience, wishes to express their views on the current state of affairs.
Just as the recent booing of Ms. Ronstadt in Las Vegas and the public backlash toward the Dixie Chicks last year clearly expresses that particular marketplace’s rejection of the speech conveyed, the audience’s applause, as in Mr. Spring-steen’s calling for governmental accountability to its citizens as seen during his past tour, expresses that particular marketplace’s acceptance of the idea.
The acceptance or rejection of Mr. Moore’s views are demonstrated by box office revenues and the acceptance or rejection of Mr. Springsteen’s current views on this upcoming election will be measured by ticket sales. If you do not like the message, tune out, turn off and turn away.
The most fundamental right we as Americans possess is the freedom of speech and expression of ideas. It is also the most misunderstood. The First Amendment protects citizens from governmental action against one’s right to free speech and assembly. The purpose is to allow and protect thought in the marketplace of ideas so that each American may decide which views to embrace or, in some cases, vilify.
The implementation of the First Amendment was and remains perhaps the most enlightened doctrine to come out of the enlightenment era. It was conceived to protect speech in opposition to conventional thought; protect speech in opposition to whatever group held political power and the freedom to express those thoughts to an audience. It was never designed to guarantee the acceptance of that thought, nor should it.
As Oliver Wendel Holmes once wrote, "[I]f there is any principle of the Consti-tution 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."
Steven P. Sukel
Marlboro