Dear Herald Tribune Editor, Sarasota, FL 

"Freedom of speech" is commonly confused with "freedom to speak."  They're not synonymous.  When framers of the US Constitution forbade Congress to pass laws "abridging freedom of speech" they meant freedom to discuss and exchange ideas, which is essential to a democratic society. 

The word speech in colonial times meant two way willing communication between equals, as in the common phrase "I wish to have speech with you." 

Shakespeare wrote about people being "in speech" with each other, as did Sir Walter Scott in Ivanhoe as recently as 1819. 

Thus it is beyond governmental power to abridge the process of free and equal citizens meeting and discussing their common concerns, as in the traditional town hall meeting, where the act of speaking is abridged the moment the meeting is gaveled to order. 

The phrase "the freedom of speech" seems first to have appeared in a 1689 British Bill of Rights where it meant parliamentary debating.  It means speech-making before willing listeners  --  two way discourse and communication. 

Had the nation's founders proclaimed a freedom to speak they would have been considered idiots.  The first thing they did when convening to create a Constitution was to forbid "indecorous" speaking. 

Free speech is not actually a right.  It is a necessity.  Without it, democracy in any organization ceases to exist.   Congress may not restrict it in any way, but there is nothing to prevent Congress from enlarging it. 

What we have today is a witless perversion of the First Amendment's free speech clause.   For 80 years the courts have said it pertains to one way communication, to solo utterance whether written or oral  -- subject of course to limitations.  "Everyone knows free speech has limits," say the courts, unaware of the contradiction and the fact that whatever free speech is, it is absolutely NOT subject to limitation (the words "Congress shall make NO LAW..." meaning just that). 

The difference between speech and speaking is the difference between a two way street and a one way street; between monologue and colloquy. 

Our Constitution does not give us the right to inflict our views and opinions  --  and our sales pitches  -- on others.  Nor to slander.  Nor to disturb a church service or shout fire in a crowded theater or harangue an unwilling audience. 

One way communication is not "speech." but speaking.  Quite a difference.  Speech is a process; speaking is an act of human behavior. 

Court decisions have dealt exclusively with solo utterance in one form or other (name calling, selling, flaunting nudity, hate mongering and hate marches, picketing, and so on). 

In recent years free speaking has been stretched to include not only free expression but, believe it or not, expressive conduct.  Thus desecrating the American flag in public is said to be "protected" speech. 

Our Constitution deals only with powers granted and those retained by the people.  There is not a word that pertains to conduct between and among citizens themselves.  NO ONE can show original intent in this regard. 

Moreover, use of money in political campaigns, and to thus buy special access to officialdom, is falsely said to be free speech, even when it can scarcely be distinguished from bribes. 

Selling porn for commercial profit is said to be free speech.  Indeed, selling anything, i.e., "commercial speech," is said to be Constitutionally protected. 

Out of state money is regularly being used to help elect Senators, who are supposed to represent their constituents, and not be beholden to distant money lords. 

Congresspersons have genuine freedom of speech.  It is written into Article I, section 6, of the Constitution.  Internally they must respectfully take turns, refrain from disruption, or be censured.  Outside the chamber they are accountable to no one.  "For any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."  You and I have the selfsame Constitutional right  -- and civic duty.  How could it be otherwise. 

What about freedom of press?  Publishers and editors have the same right as any citizen, namely the equal opportunity to participate in the public forum, using both written and oral words.  By no stretch of imagination does this include uncivil conduct. 

There is no right in the Constitution, or anywhere else, to deny to others the human and political rights one claims for oneself.  There is no right to impose on another, nor a right to do wrong. 

Alexander Meiklejohn said newsmen are merchants and should be treated as such.   Selling is not free speech, he said.  Nor is manipulation of men.  The regrettable reality, he said, is that today commercialism controls most of what we see and hear, and that we are giving the word "freedoms" to the most flagrant enslavement of our minds and wills. 

It's time to discern what free speech is, and what it is not. 

Respectfully, 
Louis Worth Jones