There are two words in the phrase “artistic license.” “Artistic” ties
into Freedom of Speech. “License” is something that you seek from
others, usually the government. To most people the phrase simply means
a special freedom granted to artists, but to me it evokes a larger
topic: Freedom versus government.
Is this dialectical tension only resolved by an either/or solution, or
does a synthesis lead to a better solution? Can we really have freedom
without government? If a little bit of freedom is good, is more of it
better? If a lot of government is bad, is a little of it still bad?
How much of these do we really want?
Our government probably offers us a greater degree of freedom than any
other in the world that governs as large and pluralistic a country.
But one person being a little “too free” often crosses the line to
trespass on another. Over the course of time, people have found that
control is necessary to curtail the free behavior of one person from
violating the rights of others. This control may stem from physical
force, fear, peer pressure, rules, or morality. In fact, it could be
argued that it took these very steps as we evolved from savages into
citizens, or developed from children into adults.
All of the things we think of today as “natural rights” are freedoms
that were unavailable to most of our ancestors throughout our long and
bloody past. Our rights stem from a list of freedoms that our
forebears agreed should be granted equally to each citizen. These
freedoms cannot be separated from the power that guarantees them.
In our society, that higher power is the government. And you have two
choices: You can accept the contract as it is written in the laws and
constitution and interpreted by the courts and by convention, or you
can reject it and run the risk of fines and imprisonment, or at the
very least, alienation. With a choice like this, most of us accept
government. Some of us willingly, others of us grudgingly. But it’s
always worth asking the question: “How much government do we really
need?” Here are two people’s opinions that bear on the subject.
Emerson: The less government we have, the better.
Einstein: Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.
In civilized society, the government is vested with the degree of might
necessary to control all groups that could threaten it. The hope is
that government will somehow be responsive to the will of the majority
and, at the same time, protective of the smallest minority. That it
will provide security for all of its citizens and arbitrate the
inevitable disputes that arise between them. And, that it will set up
laws and regulations that forestall many of the possible disputes in
the first place.
I believe we have enough government when it can accomplish this job.
We have too much government when it goes beyond this to other jobs that
are simply “good ideas.” We need good ideas. We need to act on them,
too. But, government should focus on its basic charter, its
constitution, and leave the good ideas to other institutions.
Government needs to be a great power with a narrow focus. The power of
government needs to be spread out, not put into the hands of a few.
Thomas Jefferson felt that the people were “the safest, though perhaps
not the wisest, depository of the public interests.”
Government, in today’s world, needs to exist on three levels: An
international level, a national level, and a local level. Local levels
consist of people interacting with people and can be run as true
democracies. At the national level, a representative government works
better. True democracy cannot function when the people are unable to
interact face to face. International government functions on the basis
of alliance and treaty. If there is a better way, we are still working
to evolve it.
There are two ways that an individual should have a voice in
government. One is through a vote. The other is through direct
participation. Things get decided by votes, but things get done by
participation. In between, things get talked, shouted, sung, and
Countries are formed from societies of people. Countries are citizens
of a world jungle. In a jungle, might makes right. Civilized
countries interact according to treaties and agreements. Uncivilized
countries behave as they desire and should be treated in whatever
manner proves necessary.
The behavior of an individual, organization, or country is shaped by
the pressures brought to bear by his, her, or its peers. First and
foremost, pressures are designed to affect people’s beliefs. Civilized
countries communicate and trade with one another; uncivilized
countries threaten and war with one another. These are the civilized
and uncivilized ways that pressure can be applied between countries.
Between individuals, pressures involve the exercise of various forms of
freedom. Civilized people exercise freedom with restraint.
One of the most basic of freedoms is the freedom of speech. People
have gotten themselves burned at the stake, stoned to death, shot for
treason, incited riots, led nations to war, and started revolutions by
speech alone. Even today, the exercise of this freedom can easily get
you fired from your job, blacklisted by an organization, or ostracized
by the politically correct.
Should people have the right to say absolutely anything? At any
volume? At any time and place? Should others have the right to take
unlimited or unreasonable offense? In a courtroom, the judge is
responsible for fairness to both parties. Freedom of speech is
extremely important to the courtroom process. A judge will typically
curtail this freedom when the probative value of some testimony is
outweighed by its inflammatory nature. This principle is being
applied, in effect, when the freedom to yell “fire” in a crowded
theater is denied.
The limits of free speech should have something to do with quantity and
quality. Noise ordinances and similar measures (even supply and
demand) can control quantity, but quality and its effects are harder to
judge. Quality involves both the value of the speech and any offense
it might give. Quality is not measured by the speaker, nor even by a
given listener. Generally we apply the standards of a typical and
reasonable listener, not just any easily offended individual. If there
are reasonable ways to tune out or ignore another’s expressions, we
should allow that which goes beyond the offensive even while it falls
short of the contributive. And, the reverse is also true.
Minorities, even minorities of one, have both rights and
responsibilities. These are granted or assigned by others, but
ultimately they are guaranteed by force. That force has been vested in
individuals and various kinds of governments throughout history. Ours
was intended to be a government of the people, by the people, and for
the people. Our government must maintain a division and balance of its
powers and be responsive to the will of the majority of its people,
while being equally responsive to the rights of its minorities.
The will of the majority and the rights of minorities are fundamental
to our way of life. The converse is not true. Minorities may
peacefully attempt to become a majority, but action should stem from
will, and will should always stem from the majority. But, even the
will of the majority should not be allowed to assign any minority a
different set of rights or freedoms than another.
Finally, under the security part of its charter, our government should
be fiscally responsible. The guiding principles of how a government
should tax and spend are simple. If you need more of something,
subsidize it. If you need less of something, tax it. If you want your
economy to run smoothly, then change your rules slowly and in very
I’m damned glad that artists don’t actually need licenses, that people
can speak freely in this country, and that we are still able to pull
together faster than we are splintering apart. I believe we will find
solutions to our problems and will even go on to encounter bigger ones,
keeping alive the tradition of nostalga that our descendants will one
day feel for the simpler times of today.
Although protected by Copyright, the author grants
permission to reprint this article in a non-profit publication, or copy
it over the Internet, with its Title, Copyright, and this notice.
Notification to the author and courtesy copies of the publication would
be appreciated. For other publication, please contact the