He said the free speech clause pertains solely to orderly public discussion by citizens of 
governmental questions - the “thinking process” of the body politic.  H emphasized that 
the clause has no pertinence to the individual act of speaking.  Speaking, he said, is 
subject to regulation “the same as shooting a gun.” 

Who was Meiklejohn?  He was an ardent free speech champion.  He was also a much 
honored educational innovator, university president, revered ACLU figure, and recipient 
of Congressional Medal of Honor. 

He lectured at length that it is public orderly discussion among citizens about their 
government - such as the New England town meeting and, indeed, such as the parliamentary procedures in Congress.  It is the “thinking process” of the body politic that is off limits 
to governmental power, he emphasized. 

Constitutional law scholars mention Meiklejohn frequently, but they fail to get the gist 
of his views.  Today none can intelligently converse about the First Amendment without 
mentioning Meiklejohn.  The free speech clause has been held by the courts to mean there 
is a Constitutional  right to say what one pleases, i.e., “speak one's mind”,  provided that “the line” between what is in the public interest and what is not, is not crossed. 

And who draws the line?   The courts do.  They review the circumstances on a case basis 
and determine what utterances are constitutionally “protected” and what are not. 

Speaking to or about another involves behavior.  Is there a freedom of behavior?  Of course 
not.  We all know there is no freedom or right to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater causing panic.  We know there is no right to slander or libel another, or defraud another. 

But the courts say that some speech, meaning speaking behavior, is “protected” by the First Amendment and some is not.  They  draw “the line”   between good utterances and bad 
utterances,  saying “Everybody knows that free speech, rather than being an absolute right, 
is subject to exceptions.” 

To illustrate:  The courts say that selling adult pornographic merchandise is protected, but 
child pornography is not.   Also, that hate speech is protected, but  where it involves overt 
action it is not.  The list is endless. 

It should be obvious to any reader that we as American citizens are being compelled to live 
with a contradiction, namely, that what is “free” is not actually “free.” 
 
 

2000 Louis Worth Jones