Differences of Opinion and the Need for Civil Opposition

The notion of freedom of speech guaranteed under our Constitution (among our First Amendment rights) is not just one of toleration of differences of point-of-view, but a compelling necessity.  It can be argued that there is a need for ‘opposition in all things.’  This is not because all viewpoints have equal merit or are equally correct—quite the contrary—but it is because freedom of discussion improves our own opinions and clarifies our own values—and maybe in the process others’ opinions and values as well. 

 

Respectful discussion requires rules of engagement.  It requires opportunity for both sides to express their viewpoints and both sides to carefully listen to the other sides’ arguments.  For this to happen it requires decency of language, disallowance of labeling or accusing and it requires not only full opportunity for expression but for rebuttal under explicit or understood rules of civil discourse.  When one side starts yelling or labeling or denouncing the other side as ‘bigots’ or ‘hateful’ or using other disparaging remarks or tactics it almost always reveals a cessation or poverty of substantive argument or honest evaluation of the issue under disagreement.  It may even, then, require the regulating of freedom of the revolutionists who cannot or will not maintain debate when it does not suit their purposes yet insist upon remaining in the arena.  Rock throwing—physical or verbal—does not facilitate conversation. 

    

All of this is for the real purpose of freedom of speech—to arrive at a truth.  More than being a system for the toleration of error, it is a system for the finding of truth. 

 

Perhaps we can picture a courtroom with rules of order, presentation of evidence, witnesses, cross-examination of witnesses, all in the presence of a judge and jury who weigh the evidence and arrive at a verdict in light of the law.  Or consider a forum where a speaker must respond to questions, or a reputable newspaper where opinions on both sides are published with balance; or a scientific article presentation that must be subjected to a peer-review.

In a totalitarian state there is a system of one-way communication.  The audience is expected to listen but cannot and dare not speak back or vote with secret ballot.  Under a despotism the opposition is quashed and critical discussion disappears.  While the right to talk may be the beginning of freedom, the necessity of listening is what makes the right important.

 

If a civil balance does not exist, democracy perishes.