An old saying is that there are two things we should never talk about at the dinner table: politics and religion. Religion doesn't come up too often on this campus except when some protester takes up a slot on Library Mall, like that guy who tied himself to a cross on Good Friday. However, our being situated in a state capital naturally makes us a center of politics. Debate can then become a huge annoyance for those not already initiated, which is of course the whole point of activism. So what happens when we as a society try to impose limits on our political discourse?
A recent court case involved the city of Pewaukee attempting to limit the political signs people could put on their lawns, allowing them to be put out only within a few weeks of an election. The city argued that the signs were a distraction to people driving, but other types of signs were allowed, like realty signs. Walter Fiedorowicz, a Pewaukee resident, was trying to start a drive for a local referendum, so his signs calling for an election were thus outside the city's demand that signs only be up during an election. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the town for violating the First Amendment rights of people like Fiedorowicz.
The town tried to cast what they were doing as a time, place and manner restriction permissible under the Constitution. For instance, they said Fiedorwicz and other people could still do activities such as handing out leaflets. According to Larry Dupuis, legal director of the Wisconsin ACLU, this would force someone to do a weaker act than what a sign signifies. \It says I care enough about this issue to put my reputation at stake,"" and the city was denying its citizens such an opportunity. Their other alternative, buying TV and radio time, was laughable; The average person doesn't have the wherewithal to do that.
In the end, the court overturned the Pewaukee ordinance as an undue intrusion. Dupuis explained the legal underpinnings. ""The alternatives they were suggesting are inadequate. Even if they were adequate alternatives it still doesn't justify the government going in and telling people what they can do with their own property."" Pewaukee is a great example of how we try to hold on to some civility, to keep the annoyances of politics out of the public eye, by going too far in limiting our individual expression.
""Antonin Scalia actually described political speech as 'the most perennially threatened form of speech', and I think it's true,"" Dupuis explained to me. The thing is, when Dupuis quoted Scalia it got me thinking about another recent controversy. Scalia was giving a speech at a college in Pennsylvania when a reporter was found to be tape-recording the speech for quote-pulling later on. Scalia normally abhors recordings of his speeches, so the federal marshal guarding Scalia summarily confiscated the tape recorder and wouldn't give it back to the reporter until the tapes were first erased.
First of all, the reporter had the recording confiscated without due process under auspices of a Justice known for his strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Dupuis explained to me that it's one thing for Scalia, who has said judges should not become public pundits, to discourage the recording of his speeches. ""Once someone has recorded something to take it from them is pretty alarming."" Besides, if Scalia didn't want his every opinion on the law to be of public interest, perhaps he shouldn't have become a Supreme Court Justice. Instead, he wants to be able to air his opinions without giving people the opportunity to comment upon them.
Our society is constantly engaging in a strange balancing act. We say we value freedom but will stifle discourse whenever we can get away with it, valuing a silent civility over actual discourse and public accountability. The real reason for these restrictions is accountability. If the people in charge weren't afraid of what the people might find under close examination, they wouldn't encourage a culture of silence to begin with. Pewaukee was wrong to silence its citizens and Scalia was wrong to allow the suppression of the free press. We shouldn't trade away political discourse for a supposed peace coming from complacency. Whether it's a matter of law or just plain custom, we should appreciate Madison's rhetorical openness and shun the pressures that other people would put upon us to stop meaningful debate. So next time you're at the dinner table, start talking about politics. And while you're at it, try religion, too.
