The Political and the Impartial: An Unhappy Marriage

       Stanley Fish's analysis of the nuances and inconsistencies of American interpretations of free speech calls into question the neo-conservative adaptation of classically progressive "buzz words". He presents the phenomena as an example of how the free speech argument is bound and open to misinterpretation and backfire against those who yield it for even the most noble of causes. Fish notes how special interests groups, the main proponents of the First Amendment, are not so special after all. Every subculture, ethnic group, political party and book club would consider themselves or be considered by someone else, a special interest group because together they argue opinions that favor their political agendas. Does this make them self-serving? Yes, and no. At the core, every action one takes serves the self, however, groups like feminists and war protesters combine to agree upon actions that provide also for some greater- good. Those who lobby against such groups demean them as "politically correct" and special interest, which is ironic because those very naysayers are simultaneously pushing their own agenda. The free speech battle often comes down to who can prove they are right, so completely that no amount of constitutionally protected rhetoric can dissuade the public from agreement.         
      At the end of the day, the right to argue is what we are truly afforded. Free speech cannot mean that every utterance, be it crude, offensive, harmful or just false, is O.K. Instead it means that such things are allowed but also subject to being torn apart by an opposing opinion. Especially in the case of speech that incites action. Herein lies the dilemma, law-making bodies have to decide where the line is between protected free speech and illegal action that made be incited by that expression. Fish states:  

"In ordinary contexts, talk is produced with the goal of trying to move the world in one direction rather than another…free expression could only be a primary value if what you are valuing is the right to make noise…" (Fish, 107)

 In essence, what Fish is bringing to light is the inherent contradiction between free speech and an amiable, peaceful society. As long as opinions differ (which they always will) and as long as words hold meaning (which they tend to do, more often than we like) then the political, the special interest, even the devious will be engaged in a (constitutionally protected) war for the support of the public. This is not to say that free speech is a bad thing, only that its misuse is inevitable and it’s meaning is constantly in flux.  

Will the future hold a broader definition of free- speech than we have today, or will it be even more heavily regulated? 

Do you believe that every group of people can be classified as "special interest"? 

To what extent, if any, should the constitution protect bigotry and hate speech under the First Amendment?