Last week most of my classes were discussing religion in the modern world. Many of our conversations touched on or even revolved around the US Constitution – particularly the Bill of Rights – probably, in part, due to the fact that we read one article by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who some of my students assumed was a lady – I don't know why.
In that process, we also came upon a number of questions about how far one citizen's rights go, whether that right is to practice religion, "bear arms," free expression, or what have you.
I, of course, being an English professor, part-time journalist, and occasional writer, am most interested in the questions of free speech or expression.
In fact, looking back, I'd guess that I've attempted to steer about 80% of my classroom discussions towards that topic at one moment or another. (Often it's while we're discussing obscenity.)
But I didn't have to do much steering while we discussed an article about the French "veil law," which restricts students in French public schools from wearing obvious religious clothing or symbols. On its surface, this law is about freedom of religion, but there are some deeper connections to freedom of expression as well (insomuch as practicing religion occasionally requires expression).
At some point, a student questioned why this restriction of religion/expression was so strange for students in public schools considering it's essentially required of their teachers. The answer is multi-faceted, but suffice it to say that I do not, as a teacher at a state-funded university, have what I would consider "free speech."
But I'm not alone. For multiple reasons, American free speech is curtailed every day.
Larry Johnson presents a good example. His NFL career is essentially over because of his free expression of his thoughts – in this case a gay slur and insubordination.
Ultimately, the restrictions on free speech are myriad, and very few people possess truly free speech.
Mark Cuban seems very close. It's tough to be pro-steroids – or even ambiguous about steroids – in our current discursive community. But I'm betting he pulls it off.
In the end, it may be that approaching truly free speech requires either a wealth of importance or a wealth of unimportance.
Beyond Cuban and just a few other exceptions, the only people I've heard talk openly about the potential triviality of steroid use in sports are the meaningless, unimportant fans.
Quote of the Week:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
First Amendment