Saving Face for the 1st Amendment

There are few guarantees afforded by the Constitution as resolute as the freedom of speech. It has grown to such status that we take it for granted, and for the most part, we exercise it with discretion and respect. There are certainly exceptions of course, both to our right to exercise free speech, and to our dignified use of it.

Doc Underwood sometimes referred to the practice of yelling 'Fire, Fire' in a crowded theater as unacceptable use of this ability. The potential for such a statement (if less than genuine) to incite a panic in which some may be injured far outweighs the comedic value, and represents reckless disregard for safety. Most municipalities would frown on this as a misdemeanor at best.

However, in a democratic republic such as ours, speech, even unpopular speech, is necessary. Political, moral, and ethical debates couldn't occur without dissenting opinions. But the city of Elmhurst, Illinois is trying to legislate that right out of existence. When I first heard of this, I was amused, but when I heard the reasoning, I became dismayed. Now I'm concerned.

The proposition brought by the city government would, if passed, add the rolling of one's eyes to a classification of misdemeanors called 'disorderly conduct', punishable by fines and possible arrest. The impetus for this ordinance stems from a woman who rolled here eyes and sighed during a statement from one of the city officials. She was ejected from the meeting.

I agree that rolling your eyes at someone can be frustrating, even hurtful. But we're all grownups here. Facial expression itself is part of speech, as is wild gesturing of hands, and other body language. It's communication in its most reduced form, and in my humble opinion still a form of speech. I realized in the first grade, sitting on the assembly room floor (which was also the gym and cafeteria) of Marion Elementary School, that the kid making faces at me was no less dignified than an emotional response to something childish.

However, we're not robots. A roll of the eyes is reasonable, if not mandatory, when public officials fail to uphold the interests of the People. The woman whose actions have prompted this suggestion is known for outbursts. Her restraint is less than admirable, as reported by The Chicago Tribune. And if she is in fact that disruptive, barring her from future city business is far preferable to attempting legislation of natural human expression.

Unfortunately, I foresee this as an infraction, however minor, of free speech. And if pursued, I believe it could lead to larger restrictions on public involvement in public affairs. On the heels of such a decision, impassioned statements that rile public opinion may be punishable, followed by a ban on public statements altogether.

We cannot be restrained from showing our disapproval. It's a requirement of a Republic.