THE QUESTION OF FREEDOM IS NOT MOOT...

Here it is Independence Day, and Dale and I are hosting the canine
cousins. This doesn't allow much independence because the two young
males, our Strider and our daughter's Lemmy, are spittin' rather than
kissin' cousins. But Cleo is having a ball.

Guinness is odd man out, the old man who just wishes everyone would
get along and a burger would fly off a grill as it did in the grand
old days when his favored master, our son now in London, indulged him.
Curses be on nanny vets who impose human dietary strictures on red
meat and bones, stout-loving beasts.

As for me, I'm left to ponder (in addition to juggling the
Strider/Lemmy dispute) the spirit of America--independence and liberty
and free speech--away from apple pie, baseball, parades, fireworks,
and other distractions. This is hard work, but someone has to
sacrifice. I am, however, reminded of the daughter's plaintive cry as
a little girl: "Do you think I'm your slave?" Alas, what goes round,
comes round, Mom.

Speaking about slaves, I have learned an interesting fact from
Wikipedia on the web: (if indeed true) slavery did not exist in
ancient Persia (or India). All religions and ethnic groups and both
genders were treated equally. Those who constructed palaces and
highways were paid employees. Thus I see that the situation in present
day Persia--Iran--has gone downhill from times B.C.: no slavery,
probably true, but enforced compliance with the inherently unequal
Sharia law.

Western thinkers, in which group I claim peripheral membership, have a
hard time telling apart "freedom" and "liberty," as well as telling
exactly what either is. This is of some concern to me, for in August I
am traveling to New Hampshire, whose state motto is, infamously, "Live
free or die." I'm not eager for the second option, so how do I live as
"free"?

This question may be a good one to put to any 2008 presidential
candidate fishing around Spotford Pond for primary votes. I'm guessing
Hillary might tell me to actualize my feminine hormones, "set big
goals," and rule my roost so to demonstrate that not only men love
power. Obama might prescribe that I hope audaciously for the best.
That doesn't take a lot of experience. Before his marriage, Fred
Thompson--were I but 30 years younger--might have taken me out to
dinner--on him, with a cigar to follow, preferably Cuban. Mitt
Romney's advice would be courteous and non-committal. I suspect John
McCain would have a joke to tell.

Such are the fantasies of a very hot summer afternoon on the
patio.

Still, the question of freedom is not moot. Not mentioned in the
Declaration of Independence I am soberly celebrating this year,
"freedom" is famously the cornerstone of the first amendment:

"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."

Last week, the Supreme Court had something to say about freedom of
speech--although perhaps not enough. It is in the nature of cautious
courts and sages to understate. This keeps us coming back and
guarantees a paycheck (just under $200,000 yearly for a justice and
anywhere from a penny on up for seers of varying reputation).

The case before the court concerned the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" banner
unfurled by an 18-year-old high school kid as the Olympic torch parade
passed his school, 4 the purpose, he confessed, of making a joke and
ruffling authority. He challenged his 10-day suspension from school,
but the court ruled for the school principal because the content of
the banner promoted illegal drug use and, obviously successful in its
purpose, disrupted school life.

Well, a joke's a joke, but carrying it to the Supreme Court is a case
of $64 million pants, to bring up another absurdity. This is another
case of freedom from common sense.

However, hidden inside is a serious issue about the limits of free
speech. Be aware that there is no absolute freedom of speech; even the
first amendment prohibits abridgement only by the federal government
and by the extension of the 14th amendment, state governments.

Of course, public schools are agents of state government. In 1969, the
court ruled students had a right to free speech in school (Tinker vs.
Des Moines). Last week's case says this freedom to speak doesn't
extend to promoting illegal drug use. The waters would have been
muddied, suggests Selwyn Duke in The American Thinker online (6/28),
had the attention-seeking student claimed his banner was anti-religion
rather than pro-drug.

And, practically speaking, what of the many potential additional ways
that students will invent to badger school administrators? Writing in the
Wall Street Journal (6/28), columnist Daniel Henninger quotes liberal
Justice Stephen Breyer: "Students will test the limits of acceptable behavior
in myriad ways better known to school teachers than to judges; school
officials
need a degree of flexible authority to respond to disciplinary challenges."

Given micromanagement by the court, Justice Breyer predicted more
cases will move from school house to courthouse, and Henninger
predicts more parents will seek private options or homeschooling to
uphold the "3 D's" of "decorum, decency and diligence" and
"self-control" over "out-of-control."

At that, I'm reminded of my canine charges and cheer for order and
control. If there is a public interest to provide free K-12 public
education, that interest ought not be hamstrung by offering children a
freedom to disrupt it. Henninger points out Justice Clarence Thomas'
concurring opinion on bong hits: """the First Amendment, as originally
understood, does not protect student speech in public schools." Thomas
finds schools act "in loco parentis," in place of parents, but also in
agreement with parents about the basic tenets that develop children
and adolescents into good adults.

Of course, we don't know how this student's parents felt about their
son's bong hits banner except they didn't strangle him for his
silliness, which would have been my temptation.

And there is actually a much more serious side to free speech and
education that needs greater attention. This is a student's right to
hear balanced speech in the classroom. Let's call this a "fairness
doctrine" for students.

Last week, the left-wing Center for American Progress and Free Press
expressed concern about right-wing domination of talk radio and
suggested the federal government regulate station ownership on the
theory that more female and minority owners will result in more
"progressive" programming.

Or perhaps it will result in more changed stations. Radio audiences
can choose to tune in or not. Conservative talk radio is popular
either because the shows are more entertaining and/or more
conservatives listen to radio and/or more conservatives listen to
radio because the print media is dominated by liberal opinion. In
whichever case, the audience isn't captive.

In the classroom, the audience is captive, and the balance of power
between teacher and student favors the teacher. Although this is
proper, the lopsided balance places a responsibility on the teacher to
present, and allow, the expression of differing opinions on
controversial issues, and opinion shouldn't be presented as fact. In
the confined, overwhelmingly liberal world of higher education, a
fairness doctrine for conservative thinking would seem more necessary
than a fairness doctrine for progressive opinion over the airwaves,
where the worst a talk host can do is hang up on a disagreeable
caller, not flunk him.

Oh, but of course, I forget academic freedom. Now I am becoming snared
in freedoms, and I'm thinking their entanglements don't rise to the
standard of an honest dog fight.