First Amendment not our nation's moral code

The amount of recent turmoil in our community regarding Richard Spencer and the National Policy Institute is a measure of both the seriousness and the complexity of the issue. It is also representative of a fundamental breakdown of communication so basic that while one party cries foul, the other hears an apology.

I call shenanigans. First, we should take care not to reduce this to a debate over the limits of free speech. The First Amendment was never intended to be our nation’s moral code. The fact that my speech is protected under the Constitution does not validate the ideas expressed therein, and just because I can say something without running afoul of the law doesn’t mean I should.

Responsible citizenship requires that I balance my right to express my own views against my responsibility to consider the views of my neighbors, including (and maybe especially) those outside my own camp, tribe, clan or group.

And if my neighbors express outrage at my views, I should consider the implications of that. My neighbors may be wrong, but their outrage should at least awaken me to the possibility that my own views are indeed outrageous.

And whereas I may claim the ultimate right to express views that are offensive to others, human decency requires that I consider their rights as well as my own.

Further, if there are actions suggested by my views which would generally be found unacceptable in civilized society, I should ponder the legitimacy of the views those actions represent. The argument that I should be allowed to say whatever I want so long as I don’t act on what I say is ridiculous.

There is a reasonable limit to what any individual should say or do as a member of a community. Failure to observe these limits weakens the fabric of society and mocks the trust that we invest in one another to not behave in a beastly manner.

I understand that in exchange for the rights of citizenship I enjoy in a free society, I am expected to enact them in good faith. I am humbled to acknowledge that the First Amendment is only as strong as the integrity of the individuals it protects. It was necessarily conceived in faith that we would not use its protection to get away with things that ultimately weaken the fabric of our society.

In short, the freedom each one of us enjoys is dependent upon each of us not to abuse it or horde it for ourselves.

At its core, a democracy requires two things: A willingness to share one’s own views and a willingness to hear those of others. Without both parts in equal proportion, there is corruption, deception and disharmony. And so, our society was predicated on the understanding that each person should speak truthfully and listen humbly.

In some ways, society functions like an orchestra: Each individual possesses his own instrument and thus the means of creating either a holy racket or a melody, and it is only by paying attention to his neighbors that he knows when he is out of tune.

But humble listening is only possible in response to truthful speaking. If one party feels the need to hide his views from his peers, he has already confessed that he knows his views will not be met with favorably. This in itself is not a problem and should not be feared by any honorable man.

What should be feared is a man who doesn’t want his neighbors to know his views. In a police state, this might be the posture of a patriot, but in a free society it is the mindset of a monster.

There is a reason the so called National Policy Institute is holding conferences in Hungary and not Hungry Horse: It affords a measure of secrecy that protects the organization from the scrutiny it deserves.

Further (and forgive me), in spite of what I imagine might be a lively turn-out, such a local event may go some distance toward discrediting NPI’s claim of racial and cultural superiority.

Wars have been fought and millions have died to combat the very idea that any one group of people has any greater value, integrity or legitimacy than any other. The view that any group of people is inferior, disgusting or backward is itself regressive — a backward step we should refuse to take as a society, the consequences from which we should perhaps even be protected by law.

Ultimately, as I see it, the spirit of the law protects each one of us equally, and so anyone who argues for the protection of the law for himself in order to deny rights and liberties to others is acting outside the spirit of the law.

And though there may be no current legal recourse, there is an easy antidote: Be actively otherwise. Go out of your way to do good to your neighbors. Cultivate and spread good things in your community.

It is a sign of our antagonistic (negative) posture toward one another that we automatically think a demonstration needs to be a demonstration against something. Why not demonstrate love, kindness and self control?

When we act in anger or outrage, we are essentially playing the game by the bully’s rules, and we are simply adding more negativity into the equation. It is simple math: When I add my negativity on top of someone else’s, there is simply more negativity to go around. In contrast, if I go out of my way to bring good things into the world, there will be more goodness for everyone to enjoy.

I hate to see a bully getting people to play by his rules. You can’t yell any louder to make a man who is busy mocking you understand. All you can do is show him to be in error by contrast. Make this a community wherein small-minded, closed-hearted views seem ridiculously out of place, and watch them wither of their own weakness.

Kyle Fedderly lives in Whitefish.