The idea of a “bulwark against tyranny” is probably an overused phrase. But it applies perfectly to the First Amendment, the core American canon that may be our best export.
These are days Americans are scrambling to remember the school civics lesson that explained rights of advocacy guaranteed by the Constitution. In those classes long ago the Amendment probably registered as just another academic exercise. But the present instability of the Presidency requires that we be awake and pay heed to its words. As students we were assured that The Amendment ratified in 1791 was our birthright. We may need to test that promise.
The wording is brief but empowering.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Even as non-experts we can still understand the broad outlines of the Amendment’s five overlapping guarantees:
We have the right to be practice a religious tradition or not. With few exceptions pertaining to a church’s tax status, the “Establishment Clause” and its related “Free exercise” clause means there can be no imposition of state or federal laws that would require or limit religious practice. Action by the President to circumscribe the rights of Muslim residents or visitors thus offends one of the most honored principles in the American project.
We have the right to say and print what we wish, though where we exercise these rights can be altered by public safety concerns and limits on trespassing. Most protests in cities and towns, for example, require notification of the police and permitting. In the workplace expressing political attitudes at work breaks no laws. But those views can still get you fired.
Freedom of association and a assembly is a basic right. And though an elected official retains the power to determine how and when, we have the right of “petition:” to meet with elected officials or their representatives. Town hall meetings or visits to the office of a member of Congress are not gifts from the member, but a constituent’s right.
In light of the President’s reprehensible description of the media as the “enemy of the people,” the guarantee of a free press has added importance. The press is the only form of business given constitutional protections, and the license from the Amendment is broad. Media outlets are given leeway to “publish” not just accurate information, but misinformation and hostile judgments of others. As it should be–and unlike the United Kingdom–libel is difficult to prove in American courts. In practice, the greatest protections of speaking and writing go to artists and journalists portraying the work of public figures.
We actually honor the First Amendment by tolerating speech and published material at the margins, including–in many cases–communications that on other grounds are repellant and uninformed. There is irony that our most cherished national value is frequently paired with words and actions most of us could not endorse. But it’s enough to tolerate the authors of sometimes ill-considered ideas. Protecting them protects us all.
The idea of a “bulwark against tyranny” is probably an overused phrase. But it applies perfectly to the First Amendment, the core American canon that may be our best export.
It’s easy to forget how much we give up when we send words in place of ourselves. The inability to make eye contact begins to starve communication of its hold on us.
A recent New York Times report describes managers at “fast casual” restaurants assigning staffers to greet new customers with a reassuring and direct “welcome.” Apparently businesses found too many first-timers leaving if no one in charge acknowledged them. It’s a specific application of the more general principle of a direct gaze as the near-certain requirement of interpersonal engagement. Child development specialists remind us that an infant’s search for its parent’s eyes is not only a joy, but an early sign of a child’s readiness to become a social being. Only weeks after birth infants begin to seek out the eyes of their parents. It’s nature’s way of cementing the bond that assures that the many needs of a relatively helpless newborn will be met.
It’s also a given in the business and academic worlds that connecting effectively with another person means returning their eye contact. This can vary from culture to culture. But it’s own norm. Even experts offering advice for choosing a new pet from the pound note that a good bet is usually an animal that gazes on our face. And it’s clearly true that our pets are veterans at the game of shamelessly using those looks of expectation to get us on our feet to provide some useful service.
It seems that the poets were right. We look into the eyes of others as if they were “windows of the soul.”
Try a simple experiment to test the essential nature of direct eye contact. Talk to a friend or relative face to face, but look at one of their ears rather than their eyes. The poor victim will often move to try to adjust to your off-kilter stare. They want to be at the center glidepath of your eyes to find signals of your engagement. Looking away suggests you want to break off the exchange. It seems that the poets were right. We look into the eyes of others as if they were “windows of the soul.”
Of course what is going on is more than reciprocal staring. We have an entire lexicon of signals that are modulated through the eyes and the facial muscles that surround them. Ask an actor to perform the emotions of surprise, concern, fear, or joy. Most of the work of suggesting these inner states is going to happen within the pupils of the eye and the muscles of the eye-lids brows immediately above them. Often these are the only tools a film or television actor has, since they are usually shot in tight closeups. Witness the last half hour of Damien Chazelle’s much-praised La La Land (2016). The final scenes of the former couple are predicated on our noticing eyes that lock as if they still had a shared future.
What is obvious here still needs to be said. The more we shift to mediated forms of personal communication—texting, phoning, e-mail and their equivalents—the more we explicitly violate this fundamental norm of communication. Like most, I delete some unread e-mails with the gusto of a chef cleaning up the debris on a cutting table. It’s easy to forget how much we give up when we send words in place of ourselves. Indifference to the channels we use and an unwillingness to make eye contact with our circle can starve communication of its hold on us.
