Labbe: Even nasty political speech rates the highest First Amendment protection

By J.R. Labbe

jrlabbe@star-telegram.com

Two items in recent editions of the Star-Telegram set some readers’ hair aflame.

One was a syndicated editorial cartoon; the other, a paid political advertisement.

On Aug. 16, political cartoonist Bruce Tinsley’s Mallard Fillmore featured President Obama holding a picture of an elderly woman as he said, "Despite a few setbacks, I’m still determined to get rid of your old clunkers . . . with my healthcare plan."

The response from a handful of local Democrats, including the chairman of the Tarrant County Democratic Party, was one of outrage.

Patently false. Racist. Mean-spirited. Feeds the lunatic fringe. Demeans the journalistic integrity of the Star-Telegram.

It’s important to note that during the eight years of the Bush administration, we received similar complaints from Republicans about Garry Trudeau’s Doonesbury strip, minus the racist claim.

People by nature see the views of their political opponents as flawed, if not false. They are quick to attribute bad motives and a willingness to lie to those of opposite views.

That pretty much describes the national debate about healthcare.

My response today is the same that was given during the Bush years: Editorial cartoons — the duck and Doonesbury as well as the one-panel pieces on the editorial page’s "Visually Speaking" feature — represent the opinions of the artists, not the Star-Telegram’s editorial board.

The purpose of the opinion pages is to be a marketplace of ideas, attitudes and viewpoints. On a daily basis, I approve publication of cartoons, letters to the editor and guest columns that hold views that I personally do not share. Frankly, if I only published what I thought should be the prevailing viewpoint, readers would soon tire of the sameness of the pages.

I firmly believe in the sanitizing power of publication. Bad ideas and silly opinions are outed for what they are. The Star-Telegram’s editorials on healthcare, which do represent the collective viewpoint of the board, have stated clearly the board’s opinion about the specious assertions of "Kill Granny death panels."

But ignoring the voices of those who hold the contrary view is not my role.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his 1919 dissent in Abrams v. United States — a decision that upheld the convictions of socialists who opposed sending U.S. troops to Russia to fight Bolsheviks — argued that a free society must be committed to the search for truth.

The marketplace of ideas allows free people to test what they believe is the truth. And one of the ways to test truth is through free speech — the exchange of ideas and opinions so vital to our small "d" democratic system of government.

Without question, free speech can take detours into some dark and ugly places. Political speech can be a particularly nasty swamp. It’s also the form of speech that receives the highest protection of the law.

The Aug. 26 advertisement from the U.S. Citizens Association was ugly in more ways than just visually — a page of newsprint crammed with type that only the most determined reader would wade through.

Looking for comments?