Replies

Last Friday, Jeff Reynolds wrote about the National School Boards Association (NSBA) asking for federal intervention because of the protests against critical race theory. They cried about the “immediate threat” posed by so many parents showing up at school board meetings.

The association described the protests as a “form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.”

Parents exercised their first amendment right to free speech, peaceable assembly, and protesting the government for a redress of grievances.

To the school board, this is domestic terrorism, and the Constitution is their manifesto.

The Supreme Court ruled in New York Times v Sullivan (1964)

23.
The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said,
'was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people...
The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system...
(I)t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions...'
and this opportunity is to be afforded for 'vigorous advocacy' no less than 'abstract discussion.'
The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, 'presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection.
To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all.' Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, gave the principle its classic formulation:
24.
'Those who won our independence believed...
that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject.
But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination;
that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government;
that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.
Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.'
25.
Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

It's a shame how the institutions of public discourse have turned away from holding government accountable and towards silencing the critics of government.

-PJ