The Right to Be Wrong; C. R LaDow

680 makers have reacted to Ralph Nader. After all, haven't they simply followed the demands of the market? Should they pay at tention to the Hooper ratings and public polls; or let a few high brow critics bend the policies of their firms? Being the latest comer to the communication scene, television has been the chief beneficiary of bitter criticism. Its well-noted ad vantage in courting an audience by picture (even color), as well as sound and words, should not blind critics to similar developments in radio and the press. Licensing policies in the former of these, and the rising costs of entry in either, have led to the development of networks and chains and, in turn, to greater standardization of product in stations and news papers. Indeed, the entire publishing business has been totally altered by the exigencies of manufacture and dedication to the mass mar1973 THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG-AND THE OBLIGATION TO BE RIGHT 681 ket in a grossly similar manner.

While there are minority book and magazine publishers who cater to scattered intellectual demands, the vast majority of print is devoted to the ephemeral democratic stand ard: statistically sampled public taste. William James had presci ence of this in 1910, when he dreaded the day when America might fall under the spell of "the 10 cent magazine." (That was be fore inflation!) In quite recent times, \he late Joseph Wood Krutch, in a charming essay, en titled No Essays - Please!, enter tained a more knowledgeable gen eration by showing how Time and Life generated copy and, with gentlemanly good humor, what had happened to such once-great magazines as A tlantic Monthly. Wrong at One's Own Risk It is always tempting to nail down one's points with the crudest and most obvious of examples. It is difficult to nail down this ex ample, because there are no extant public opinion tables for 1492.

However, there is strong second ary evidence that the majority of persons in Columbus' day believed the earth to be flat. Columbus dif fered with that opinion and was ready to risk his life and fortunes on his assumption of the earth's sphericity. According to public opinion, Columbus was wrong. However, the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution suggests that he had "the right to be wrong" - at least so long as he didn't force anyone to agree with him. If Voltaire really said, "I dis approve of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it," those of us acquainted with Voltaire's works will know it was Columbus' form of free speech he so favored rather than the "free speech" often claimed for terrorists and criminals today. For, in any society worth in habiting, every right involves re sponsibility and responsibility means obligation. The right to use the public highways involves the obligation to keep to one's own side of the road, with chaos and death the only alternative. Colum bus had the "right to be wrong,"

according to public opinion; but he had the obligation to prove himself right at his own risk, and of those who voluntarily joined him, without in any way involv ing those who disagreed and with out overturning society. • Columbus' right to free speech only existed so far as he did not use or advocate force in proposing his theory and proj ected explora tion. His obligation to be right was implicit in his duty to protect the lives and property of his fel low mariners and the investment and prestige of the Spanish crown.

682 , THE FREEMAN November Any other view of such matters would be clearly disruptive of any viable society. Men cannot live to gether successfully without a good measure of mutual trust and for bearance. There is certainly no dearth of argument in America today in fa vor of "free speech." In common parlance, jt has become the near est to an absolute principle, in our Constitution, making the First Amendment even superior in re gard to the shibboleth of "equal ity." We have reached the absurd point where burning down an op position headquarters can be equated wih free speech and where any means of chicanery or force may be tolerated in gaining or disseminating information or opinion. Innuendo, and even out right falsehood, have equal stand ing to honestly spoken truth, where, as Hitler once suggested, the biggest lie may be the most palatable public information. Flouting Social Custom It seems to be generally over looked, or forgotten, that abso lute freedom of expression has al ways been in question by the very best minds and that that question able ideal has never been sup ported by any society which ever existed. Samuel Johnson said: "Every man has a physical right to think as he pleases; for it cannot be discovered how he thinks.

He has not a moral right, for he ought to inform himself, and think justly. But, Sir, no member of a society has a right to teach any doctrine contrary to what the so ciety holds to be true ..." What our society holds to be true has been eroded -by permissiveness; but, however, attenuated, sanc tions are still inveighed, both le gally and morally, against those who break the remaining taboos. Even our widely revered Marxist philosopher, Dr. Marcuse, has made it perfectly clear that, if he had the power, he would shut up the opposition. All radical and "progressive" elements, who most loudly proclaim "Freedom of Speech," are the first to shout down, or attack physically, any vo cal opposition. Meanwhile, as we nurse a childish faith in the magic of free expression, the majority of the earth's citizens, including our worst enemies, exist totally without that amenity. The worldwide and historical lesson which we should be getting is that freedom of speech is no exception to the rule: No right can long survive without its con comitant responsibilities. Milton's A reopagitica and our Jeffersonian First Amendment were the prod ucts of morally educated men: men who deeply felt the obligation to be right. Like Dr. Johnson, 1973 THE RIGHT TO BE WRONG - AND THE OBLIGATION TO BE RIGHT 683 they recognized the duty to "in form (themselves) , and think justly." To men of such mind and spirit, the hubris of an attorney like Kunstler would be unthink able. Free speech is the fruit of humane civilization. Primitive savagery, however intellectualized, can never create it, or sustain it.

Attached to the right of free speech is forever attached the ob ligation to be right. True, man is a frail creature, apt to be wrong. Also, to be right is a most difficult feat: one which leads many to the extremes of de spair or arrogance. Nevertheless, this obligation is faced by each of us from the first breath of life, which, if not properly taken, leads to suffocation. Each day we make many decisions, like crossing the street, or taking to the woods, wherein lie mortal chances of de feat, dishonor, or destruction. Our security, and that of society and humanity, is dependent on the cor rectness of decisions. Unlike most living things, man is largely be reft of instincts; so his continued existence is largely based on in herited lore} the funded experience of history. When, in his opinion, a man's obligation to be right is outweighed by his right to be wrong, that man is close to ex tinction. So it is with a society.

We would not dream of submit ting a navigational plan for the astronauts toa public poll for correction. It would not occur to us to send a watch toa plumber for repair, or invite the milkman to remove our appendix. Then, why should we make obeisance to a common denominator in· in structing and entertaining the hu man mind? The human mind is infinitely variable and any cross section, of taste or capacity, is sure to leave out of concern the vast majority of variables. At any rate, do not the media and press have an obligation to improve pub lic taste and capacities? It seems manifestly one-sided that so many agencies are applying themselves to protect the consumer of food, drugs, or material goods, while scarcely anyone pays responsible attention to the mass consumption of the mind. Gossip, innuendo, and even palpable falsehood are ac corded equal representation with the truth. The exaltation of statistical public opinion is an outgrowth of the dogma of pure democracy. It is part and parcel of the notion that a majority vote is the final answer to any dispute. This not only negates the religious view that "One, with God, is a major ity," ignores Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence which termed men "equal and in dependent," and evades the divi sion of powers and differences of 684 THE FREEMAN November education and abilities; but it also invites the absurd assumption that all knowledge is a matter of opin ion. Most of our erratic, and often disastrous, behavior as a nation today stems from attempts to im pose the dogma of pure democracy upon the constructive forms of our Constitutional Republic. In this, we· ignore the clearcut lessons of history, reaching back to ancient Athens and Rome. We have turned Alcuin's remark to Charlemagne that "The voice of the people is the voice of God" into a material istic parody.

In our halls of government and in the public media; the amount and quality of intellectual "shoot ing-from-the-hip" is appalling. Be cause of the inevitably loaded nature of polls, one is fortunately able to believe that the real ma jority would· not, if properly reached, agree with such shenani gans. However, even though, as Lincoln said, ". . . you can't fool all of the people all the time," he also said, "... you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time." Since the day of "snake oil" salesman, false adver tisers and charlatans have found these latter categories adequate to their purposes. They can, in any event, count on the commonness of a short span of attention and a short memory to save them from the majority. But, they can not release themselves from the moral obligation to "inform (them selves) and think justly." And, even if bereft of civilized morals, they should be able to obey na hIre's injunction: "A bird should not befoul its own nest."

Attacks on the Government of the United States, "giving aid and comfort to their enemies," have become commonplace. Deadly at tacks are made on the firms and industries, freedom of enterprise, and the sanctity of property and privacy, which have made this na tion a haven for the beleaguered everywhere. Such things happen and are accepted blandly, and even supported, by officials sworn to up hold these institutions and by those whose calling is to inform the public of the true state of af fairs and uphold propriety of opinion. Beyond this, anyone who points out that such things are happening is labeled a' "kook," or "a crazy," or a victim of paranoia. Presumably, only those who are busily dismantling all the mores and institutions of this nation, without even any clearcut alterna tive, are sane and properly "ad justed" individuals. Well, they had better be right; for, if not, they have clearly exhausted their "right to be wrong" - as far as anyone in our history has done so. I) the Quest for IndividualDignity ..