Editorial from The Guide	Editorials Archive

Allowed to compete freely with alternative theories, truth has an advantage. Incomplete understanding or the prejudices of the age may temporarily obscure truth, but when inquiry is unfettered, when dogma receives no subsidy in the form of punishment for dissenters, truth prevails.

Recognizing this enduring resilience of truth is part of the classic defense for freedom of expression. Freedom's advocates also note the inherent dangers of enforced "truth." Institutions and individuals, even if well-meaning, who exert their power to "protect" truth by suppressing dissent inevitably end up defending dogma. The Catholic Church may have been able to force Galileo to parrot their cosmology, but that didn't change the fact that the Earth really does orbit the sun.

View our poll archive

Thus, freedom of expression doesn't mean tolerating opinions as long as they're not too offensive or unorthodox. Freedom of expression involves the twin beliefs that a free market place of ideas-- including its zany and offensive components-- holds the best hope of finding truth and that censoring expression, no matter how unpopular, inevitably harms the quest for truth and, ultimately, justice.

But all too few people enjoy a clear understanding that defending someone's rights is not the same as advocating their agenda. Ever-present McCarthyism tries to tag defenders of freedom of expression as in league with the dangerous ones who must be suppressed. Such intimidation cows many into silent complicity with freedom's foes.

Thus, the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) decision to represent the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in court is appreciated by all who value freedom of expression. NAMBLA is being sued by the parents of a boy who was murdered. They claim that the murderers had seen the NAMBLA website before they killed their boy, and thus NAMBLA is responsible for the death. Almost all would recognize such a claim as absurd-- except that NAMBLA is one of the most politically unpopular groups in the country. And just as the Constitution was suspended a half century ago by those wanting to appear tough on communism, today the Bill of Rights is under assault by those who seek to prove they're against child molestation. But fortunately, the ACLU understands that civil liberties really are indivisible-- you're either for them or against them, you can't pick and choose. If freedom of expression is to be preserved, courts cannot be used to sanction or censor any website, newspaper, or soapbox orator based on the popularity of the beliefs espoused.

But let us be clear, too, that the ACLU's resources are welcomed in the fight for freedom of expression not just for an abstract, albeit important, principle. In the marketplace of ideas, there is an alarming shortage of rational thought regarding adolescent and childhood sexuality. Our legal system punishes affectionate blowjobs with the same penalties as for brutal rapes. Differing ages of consent mean that acts legal in one state bring a life sentence in another. Teens are being prosecuted for "raping" each other. The Supreme Court okays gulags to warehouse those who prosecutors claim might commit a sex offense sometime in the future. Drawings, sculpture, and paintings can be deemed child pornography if their owner has impure thoughts.

Clearly, our society needs a more thoughtful approach to youth sexuality. But almost all mainstream media parrot the dogma that sex is inevitably harmful to children and that the answer to every issue is more prisons, increased surveillance, and criminalization of more sexual expression-- consensual or not. By preserving a bit of diversity in the idea marketplace, today's freedom of expression advocates keep alive the hope that a more sane discourse is possible.