What follows is a generalized thematic analysis of trends in Supreme Court cases focused on the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In the process of analyzing these cases during Constitutional Law classes, I discovered a disturbing underlying social justice issue in Supreme Court rulings. The Court rarely makes ground-breaking rulings, preferring generally to allow incremental, nearly unnoticeable, steps forward

From Gitlow through Terminello, a common theme seems to emerge, and I am not referring to the right of free speech per se. I am referring to the apparently commonplace conflict between those who comprise the majority of resources (capitalist majority) and those who rely upon them for support (populist majority) against those who reject those majority viewpoints. It seems that most, if not all of these cases revolve around dispute of the “right” of these majority interests to not have their composure lost to offensive viewpoints. We see this trend now in the concept of political correctness, wherein the offense of no one is sought in order to maintain peaceable relations. Of course, this is all a smokescreen that the status quo might be retained for the benefit of the capitalist majority.

My reasoning here is that happy, contented people, like cattle, grow fat off whatever the herders see fit to provide them, and do not look for greater meaning in life. Very rarely are the dispositions of these cases particularly radical; they are politically motivated efforts at keeping the herd happy when it has learned of unsettling events. Complacency prevents revolution and usually eliminates real progress in the social arena. From this, one might see that “enlightened” rulings in the area of civil liberties are little more than the scrap thrown to the dog so that one isn’t bit.

The reason that I write this is that a century ago, 10% of the population controlled about 85% of the wealth; today, 1% controls over 98% of the wealth available in the U.S. In 2000, before the re-adjustment of the poverty level- lowering the income figure- over 40% of Americans fell under the poverty level. The poverty level was defined at $18,500/annum per family of four; the new figure, to offset those horrible numbers, is $17,800. Even with this adjustment, the per capita poverty is something like 32%- the worst figure in the First World, coming out of the wealthiest nation in the entire world. The Court plays a role in this, providing the populace with an apparent defender of its liberties while actually providing, through these decisions of little merit, the capitalist majority with a security against that populace. Free speech is still routinely denied to many on a daily basis. Sometimes the denials make some sense; usually they don’t. About eleven years ago in Illinois, an Ojibwa student was suspended for refusing to take part in Columbus Day activities.

Enter my dispute with Paladin; the emotional reaction it represents is typical of how the populace is desired to respond. If one can get the populace to respond emotionally to social issues, then one can prevent the populace from seeing the little, cowardly man behind the screen and smoke; and the little man can continue to control things. The problem rests in that he is a miser with his wealth, power, and influence. So long as he can convince others of the reprehensibility of all killing and violence, he can safely plunder all he encounters. The Courts allow that he should return some small token as he takes the largest share for himself.