CC:   Editor of the San Mateo Independent - 

Dear Editor:

Freedom of speech is not freedom to speak.  They're not synonymous.  When the framers of the U.S. Constittion forbade Congress to pass laws "abridging freedom of speech" they meant freedom to gather peacefully and exchange ideas, which is essential to a democratic society. 

The word speech in colonial America meant two-way communication, as in the common phrase I wish to have speech with you." Shakespeare often wrote about people being "in speech" with each other, as did Sir Walter Scott in Ivanhoe as recently as 1819. 

The phrase "freedom of speech" first appeared in the 1689 British Bill of Rights where it referred to parliamentary debating.  It means speech-making before willing listeners, two-way discourse, communication, discussion.   This meaning was well known to the nation's founders. 

But we do not have freedom to SPEAK, because speaking is interpersonal conduct and there is nowhere a freedom of conduct.

Ardent free speech champion Alexander Meiklejohn said speaking is subject to regulation"the same as shooting a gun." 

As citizens we know we have the right and duty to speak out and participate in governmental affairs, but our Constitution does not give us the right to inflict views and opinions  --  and our sales pitches  -- on unwilling ears.  Nor to slander.  Nor to disturb a church service or  falsely shout fire in a crowded theater.  Nor to engage in any conduct threatening to another. 

One-way communication is not "speech" but speaking.   Quite a difference. 

Louis Worth Jones 
 
 

1999