The First Amendment is occasionally taken for granted in America. This country's citizens have been blessed with a nearly 250-year old, stable democratic state, borne of the highest Enlightenment ideals and defended domestically and abroad. The bitter struggle and spilled blood that preceded the independence of the United States of America is not recent history, but a fairy tale. The American Revolution is a compelling story that still serves as a major foundation for the nation's identity and self-purpose, yet to the children learning about the war, the triumphal outcome is sealed from the start, the happy ending already secured. What this means for us is that, although we all utilize our First Amendment rights in one way or another, it can be hard to appreciate how hard-earned our rights were and just how much of an anomaly the U.S. was in 1776.
My father, a resident of Virginia, also exercises his rights. He communicates his opinion, and he assembles with others in efforts to petition the General Assembly. But decades earlier, he was a dissatisfied and passionate dissident in Soviet-occupied Czechoslovakia. Since the age of four, he had known no alternative to the systematic suppression of basic human rights and freedom of expression in his country, courtesy of the Brezhnev Doctrine. Long before the mass demonstrations that wiped communism from the Eastern Bloc, there existed smaller, more dangerous protests banned by the state and monitored by secret police. He actively protested. He exercised his right to freedom of speech and assembly, rights technically mentioned in the constitution but invariably suppressed in practice.
He and other suppressed peoples in undemocratic, authoritarian societies do this because they hold the belief that rights contained in our First Amendment (and in other democracies' constitutions) are not contingent upon living in the right place at the right time. They are, as Thomas Jefferson noted in the Declaration of Independence, natural, inalienable and self-evident rights of man; everyone is entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
As with the founding of the U.S., some might view Cold War struggles for freedom as a distant memory consigned to the history books. They need to look no further than to people like Hu Jia and others in the People's Republic of China arrested and sometimes tortured on the basis of "subverting state power," or, in other words, disagreeing with the government and being vocal about it. After all, in the absolute ruler's view, a society robbed of the freedom to protest, to obstruct and to resist is more conducive to carrying out policy.
Although Americans can draw upon a great and proud history, the First Amendment hasn't been uncontested here, either. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which stifled criticism of the government, were some of the first attacks on our rights. Much later, Woodrow Wilson's follow-up with the 1918 Sedition Act similarly outlawed expressing anti-war sentiments. Of course, slavery kept liberty out of reach for an entire ethnic group, and McCarthyism paranoia persecuted anyone with certain leftist opinions during the 1950s.
Today, we also sometimes struggle to uphold the First Amendment, particularly when an individual espouses an idea that we find reprehensible. Sometimes, in times of controversy or emergency, our usually implicit but disengaged support for this foundation of our freedom tends to weaken. For example, when a controversial speaker visits campus, some call for censorship of the event. We must be careful to not waver from our duty to support these freedoms, even - especially - when we ferociously disagree with he who is exercising those rights.
It was very odd going with my father to pull out his formerly secret profile written up by the former State Security agency. Even after my parents had maneuvered through the Iron Curtain to live in Bavaria, the file had grown larger, describing the model of the car they used and even how many things they had left at my grandmother's house. Under regimes where there is no "First Amendment," going to such lengths just to keep someone from disagreeing is the status quo. The rights to speech, press, assembly, petition and religion should extend beyond America's borders and beyond our own established views. As we celebrate our Bill of Rights in America, we should remember not only to use these rights to defend our own liberty, but, like Voltaire, defend and fight for everyone's right to make themselves heard without fear.

Leave a comment 5 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Funny how we take the 1st Amendment so seriously, but don't apply this same logic to the 2nd Amendment, which protects ALL of the Bill of Rights.
Reply to this Top
Agreed, if more people exercised their 2nd amendment rights, maybe the 1st amendment wouldn't be under such threat.
Reply to this Top
i'm as big a supporter of constitutional rights as anyone, but more people carrying weapons (not to say they *can't*) does not make the 1st amendment safer. Is Chief Justice Roberts really threatened by people with shotguns? of course not, the US Army is far more sophisticated and well-equipped. Further, he should not have to *fear for his life* if he decides a case one way or the other; firstly because we must respect people's rights no matter their viewpoint (a supporter of the Constitution should know this), and two, he could be just as easily scared into ruling *against* the Constitution. Good policy can never come from threat of physical harm.
Reply to this Top
excellent column, though. Philipp, your father is very courageous and an inspiration for all who appreciate the rights of man.
Reply to this Top
swm, what are you talking about? You went from people exercising their right to bear arms to threatening a Justice? Anyway, your assertion that "more people carrying weapons" doesn't make anything safer is irrelevant, at best.. you're talking about it like someone were handing out guns at random, which fails to recognize the system in place to minimize guns getting into the wrong hands. And it is also true that without the 2nd, all of our other rights are at risk of being swept away at will, and then the best we could do is throw stones, like the people of Iran have been doing. Welcome back slavery!
Reply to this Top