From Commencement Parts

Those Americans who wrote and adopted our Constitution provided that the individual should be free to speak his mind. They demonstrated a belief that political truth is best discovered by free inquiry and debate. Yet, several state legislatures have recently passed laws which strike at free speech. And, today, before the Congress is the Mundi-Nixon bill. This bill, if enacted into law, would set up a politically appointed Subversive Activities Control Board, would require the registration of all organizations vaguely characterized as "Communist-front," and would impose criminal penalties for violations of the various provisions. Taken together, all these provisions may well lead to the suppression of minority views which look to reform rather than revolution. For the bill sets forth no standards by which the prosecuting officials and the courts could fairly determine who among our people are guilty of criminal violations. We may wonder whether the standards of disloyalty in 1960 would differ substantially from those in 1950. We should ask whether individuals who hold minority views will speak out if they must risk being branded as subversives and being prosecuted as criminals.

Despite its vagueness, the Mundt bill may become law. In several states, equally vague statutes are already on the books. Still, the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to condemn these laws as unconstitutional.

When confronted with economic legislation, the Court has wisely been reluctant to find fault if the legislators have acted reasonably. But within the past decade the Justices have indicated that they will employ a more demanding test of constitutionality when considering laws which curtail freedom of expression.

Some object to this more exacting standard of judicial examination, asserting that if the Court does not leave the limitation of free speech to the legislatures, it will betray a lack of faith in the democratic process. Others fear that too much freedom will undermine the prestige and efficiency of democracy and thereby endanger that very liberty which we seek to protect. Accordingly, the Court should not impede the legislatures in their efforts to reconcile liberty with authority. Policy should be made not by the judges but by the elected representatives.

Plausible as this criticism may be, it is not persuasive. Our tradition includes other concepts than that the democratic process must always prevail. If the sentiment of the community is to be accurately reflected, it is indispensable that the individual be free to express his convictions. This freedom assumes increasing importance in view of the increasing intervention of government in the affairs of daily life. Freedom to criticize will serve as a check on arbitrary governmental action. The first responsibility of the Supreme Court is to assure the American people that their representatives do not destroy the conditions vital to a free society.

The Supreme Court, insulated as it is from political pressures, is well suited to exercise an independent judgment on the merits of legislation which restricts free speech. We should look to the Court for a substantial restraint on legislative action which impairs the right of Americans to speak without fear. At the same time, let us not forget that the preservation of our liberty depends ultimately on the American people, for without a people who are alert and sensitive to its value no nation can long enjoy liberty.