A common misconception about the Bill of RIghts is who and what they protect. Consider the First Amendment’s protection of speech and press and separation of church and state. Also, consider the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Freedom of Speech/Press
“I have my freedom of speech!” It is likely just about everyone has uttered (or thought) this at one time or another. Very few Americans dismiss the idea of freedom of speech, but may, sometimes, if they are on the listening end. But considering the purposes of First Amendment speech, an audience should be the most considered about protecting freedom of speech.
The purpose of the First Amendment is not in protecting the speaker, but the audience. The greatest advocate was John Stuart Mill. Mill suggests that the search for truth is eternal and such a journey would not continue henceforth without challenges to the prevailing view. Minority dissenting views continue march forward and disallow an entire nation to succumb to an opinion that may or not be the truth. Sadly, this has awful consequences, such as bigoted Nazism, Holocaust denial, and 9/11 conspiracy, but balancing the interest may show that allowing these minority views allows us to continue onward in search of more worthy truths.
Mill’s idea was coined as the “marketplace of ideas,” suggesting that all are consumers in the marketplace and every idea should be allowed, so it could be consumed. The underlying theory was truth is usually unbeknownst to many especially the government. Over time, the truth will be challenged and, if it is the truth, it will prevail.
When the Founders drafted the First Amendment, John Milton and Thomas Jefferson had hinted at this argument long before Mills articulated it. Milton, who ironically became blind later in life, argued that allowing all opinion was necessary because the truth would eventually prevail (but gave no mention of how long a society must wait). Milton was fervently opposed to censorship of printing presses, ergo the irony.
Freedom of Religion
Evangelical Christians frequently claim that taking the Bible and prayer out of the classroom is the cause of society’s ills. Whether or not this is true, suggesting both be a part of curriculum is self-defeating. It becomes apparent when the logistics are considered, which the Founders foresaw.
There is little doubt the prayer would be Christian and the Bible would be the King James translation, but ignore the obvious separation of church and state. So Christian, right? Will we have a Baptist prayer or maybe children should say a Catholic prayer? It becomes obvious that beyond arguing for Christian ideals, many Christians would suddenly oppose state-santioned religion in schools.
The separation of church and state does not limit religion, but allows it.
Fourth Amendment
“Search everyone. I’ve got nothing to hide.” This is common response argument against protecting criminals by requiring searches to be reasonable, but again the Amendment is not for the protection of the guilty, but for the protection of the innocent.
The suggestion that an individual would consent to a search and so to everyone else is misguided. First, the individual has control over the context of the search. Take for example, an individual does not mind having their briefcase or purse searched. They know that they do not have any embarrassing items and so would easily give consent to be searched. This leads to the second problem: the person assumes by declaring they have nothing to hide they would not be confounded as a guilty of a crime.
It would be likely that anyone would be willing to allow a search of some private area, like a car or room. The problem is they know what will be found. Now imagine not knowing what the police will search, maybe your car, maybe your house, and allowing them to do so. This makes it a little more difficult for any rational person to allow a search if it is not on their terms.
Second, it is easy to declare that you are innocent and have nothing to hide, but what if you were not able to confess such innocence to all who could possibly witness the search and likely be construed as a drug dealer or worse? This scenario almost gives me nightmares. Imagine driving down a busy highway and being pulled over. Imagine your car now being searched by several police officers, while you sit handcuffed. Imagine the cars driving by looking at you speculating about what crime you had committed. This is the shame the Fourth Amendment attempts to protect against. But, then again, you have nothing to hide, so you should not be that afraid (from arrest that is).
lukenofsinger 