This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

A Poem In Public Is Illegal

Professor of Law Jed Rubenfeld comes to the Wilton Library to give a comprehensive talk on the First Amendment.

"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too," said Voltaire more than a century ago.

People often invoke the First Amendment, the right to free speech, freedom of religion and the freedom to assembly. But what it means and how it is interpreted may surprise some.

"There are a few countries in the world where reciting the wrong poem at the wrong time could mean you get thrown in jail. And the United States is one of them," said Jed Rubenfeld, the Robert R. Slaughter Professor of Law at Yale Law School.

Find out what's happening in Wiltonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The large crowd gathered at the Wilton Library Thursday night hushed.

Then Rubenfeld explained. U.S. courts consider it a violation of copyright law to read a copyrighted work aloud to more than 50 people. It is considered a performance.

Find out what's happening in Wiltonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Most think freedom of speech means saying what they want, when they want. Not exactly.

"Freedom of speech doesn't protect just anything," said Rubenfeld addressing the First Amendment in the second of the three-part Bill of Rights Series sponsored by the Wilton Historical Society, Wilton Library, and Wilton Bank.

Still the United States has the most liberated protection of free speech in the world.

"We are outliers. Most other countries don't take our view," Rubenfeld said.

In Germany and in Canada wearing a swastika emblazoned armband is a criminal offense. In Vietnam, criticizing the government nearly guarantees a lengthy prison sentence, as the recent case of five dissidents proves. In England freedom of speech is called freedom of expression and its constitution explicitly states that national security or safety takes priority.

These other countries regard their priority as balancing interests, said Rubenfeld. When those interests, such as public order or public safety appear more pressing, the government slams free speech shut.

"I'm an absolutist when it comes to free speech, I don't believe in this act of balancing," Rubenfeld said.

The problem with balancing is what is in the national interest is subjective, said the law professor. To subscribe to the theory of balancing is to open a can of worms. There is no way to predict what will and what won't hurt society.

Rubenfeld primarily focuses on constitutional law, privacy, First Amendment, and criminal law. His recent books include Freedom and Time and Revolution by Judiciary: The Structure of American Constitutional Law.

Rubenfeld also wrote the novel "The Interpretation of Murder" and has a second novel forthcoming, said Owen Williams a member of the library board who arranged the speakers.

"I think we need to thank the Supreme Court for focusing so much attention on the First Amendment," said Louise Herot by way of introduction.

Herot referred to a recent 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission.  The majority ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech.

Since 1947, businesses had been banned from using a general fund to endorse or oppose political candidates.  The justices ruled that restriction unconstitutional.

Rubenfeld agrees with the decision. The problem lies not with what corporations say or don't say, but rather with control of their spending.

"A comprehensive campaign finance law needs to be drafted. We should go after the spending, not the speech," Rubenfeld said.

To Rubenfeld, the recent ruling upholds the First Amendment's core: no prior restraint. In other words, the government can't censor.

Of course the government has tried to censor throughout the nation's history.  In 1789 President John Adams executed the Alien and Sedition Act, criminalizing criticism of his administration.

In 1917, Woodrow Wilson signed the Espionage Act which made it a crime for a person to speak out against the war or the U.S. military. If convicted, a person risked the death penalty or imprisonment.

In 1918, Eugene Debs, a three time presidential candidate, was convicted and sentenced to ten years in jail for saying, "You need at this time especially to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder."

Oliver Wendell Holmes, now considered a patron saint of the press, upheld Debs' conviction. He later rethought his decision and together with Justice Louis D. Brandeis laid the foundation for modern First Amendment law.

"Today, because of judicial decisions, we live in a country where we can paint anything we want, make any music, write anything free of government censorship," Rubenfeld said.  "I think historians will look at freedom of speech and marvel that we dared to do this."

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?