Not long ago I was listening to Keyris Manzanares on VPM News “Focal Point,” presenting a special program reviewing when disagreeing people’s “rights” conflict with each other. I realize that there is plenty of disagreement of expression in the world today, but I would respectfully suggest it is a collision of OPINIONS, not of “rights.”
I do not believe that people’s rights collide within the United States. That notion implies that “rights” are conditional or limited and in possible need of curtailment, lest their exercise produce unacceptable conflict. That notion is further due to a widespread misunderstanding of what, exactly, “rights” are. Rights belong to individuals, not groups. Individuals surely have a “right” to act in groups with like-minded other persons, but the “rights” still belong to each individual, only.
No government or court or judge or army can take our rights away from us. Every official in the United States, federal, state or local, including all military officers, lawyers and judges, are SWORN to support the United States Constitution and its implicit guarantees of our rights. But, our “rights” are not dependent upon nor even granted by that document. The ONLY thing that any government official can do, including EVERY judge, is simply to ignore our rights, in blatant violation of the solemn oath to support them. Sadly, that happens on occasion.
Most often, this is seen where two (or more) individuals express differing opinions, in conflict with each other. But the EXPRESSION of opinion is not what is in conflict. It is the opinions themselves that are in conflict, and no one has a “right” to cut off or censor the other’s expression, even if they don’t like it or agree with it. Each of us must endure hearing those opinions, whether we agree or not. Ugh.
As someone else said, the answer to offensive speech is MORE SPEECH! Not censorship. This does not mean, however, that people have a “right” to attend and disrupt a public meeting. The chairs of such meetings are obliged to enforce rules to allow the orderly conduct of business, including an orderly expression of opinions, but that does not include a power of censorship. I see no conflict of rights there if the “rules” are strictly observed.
It is also well to observe here that our “rights” are only with respect to government activity and with respect to those who are acting “under color” of government authority. There is no guarantee of “rights” enforcement against individuals OR businesses regarding private, one-on-one relationships. But neither individuals nor private institutions can conspire to have “government” deprive others of their rights.
There are no such things as “special rights,” a phrase one hears from those who are offended by someone they dislike demanding enforcement of his or her rights. Everyone’s rights are the same rights we all have, including “rights” of protection and enforcement. And, it is important to remember that really despicable people have those same “rights,” and we are obliged to respect that fact, even if we vehemently dislike the individual claiming or exercising such rights. Admittedly, that it really difficult to honor, sometimes, but it is necessary. Also, no one has a right to “feel good” about something. Feelings are internal, subjective and constantly subject to injury or offense. Just get over it!
States have constitutions, too. They are nothing more than governments that have transitioned from being mere colonies in rebellion (at the time of the Revolutionary War) to states, endowed with powers by the people living therein. States can’t just “do” whatever a majority wants. They don’t have a “blank check” of unlimited powers, nor should they. They must be constrained by their own constitutions, and if that document does not grant a specific power, then in my opinion that power does not exist. Of course, finding a judge or politician with the spine to enforce that may be problematic!
States don’t have “rights,” either, notwithstanding a persistent belief to the contrary, especially in the South. As governments, they have only “powers” or the lack thereof. Only the “people” can have rights, subject to their forfeiture by operation of constitutional law or by a constitutional grant of contrary or limiting “power” to such government via the respective constitution.
Powers and rights are two different things. It is important for everyone to understand that difference and be clear about which is being invoked. We, the people, have a right to have our rights enforced and respected by ALL government officials, but our only means of true enforcement is at the ballot box. It is well to keep that in mind at all times.
_____________________________
