No room for silencing dissenters

What makes freedom of speech so difficult to understand and accept?
That question came up at Sunday’s discussion at the Des Moines Valley Friends Meeting. The Friends invited me to speak at the gathering that coincided with the 50th anniversary of the Dec. 15, 1975 bombing of the Friends meeting house and the adjacent American Friends Service Committee building at 42nd Street and Grand Avenue in Des Moines.
Police never located the bomber so no criminal charges were filed. Consensus remains that someone planted the explosives who disliked the Quakers’ and AFSC’s opposition to the Vietnam war, their support of non-violence, and their humanitarian relief efforts in Vietnam after the war.
I reminded the audience Sunday of what Mary Autenrieth of Paullina, the chair of the AFSC’s regional policy board 50 years ago, told The Des Moines Register then: “I expect in a nation where open disagreement is encouraged, there are some who disagree with us. But I would expect that they would not use violence in answer.”
I told the group too many people today stand up for protection of First Amendment freedoms only for those who think, speak or act in conformity with their own views. When someone dares to express an opposing or dissenting view, too many people today do not object to silencing that voice.
Consider the confusion that swirls from Washington, D.C. to Des Moines and beyond over what our First Amendment freedoms truly advance.
Think I am exaggerating?
How else should we view the president’s claim the New York Times was guilty of sedition or treason when it reported on his health and reduced public events schedule? Or his decision to ban Associated Press reporters from the White House because the news organization chooses not to use his preferred name for the body of water lapping at the U.S. southern border?
The president is not alone in applying a sliding scale when it comes to protecting First Amendment freedoms.
For the second consecutive year, Gov. Kim Reynolds’ administration stopped the Satanic Temple of Iowa from placing the group’s holiday display inside the Iowa Capitol, even though other religious activities have occurred there during the Christmas season. Satanic Temple officials have said they only seek to promote tolerance and acceptance of diverse religious beliefs with their display.
Adam Steen was the director of the Department of Administrative Services who rejected the Satanic Temple’s 2024 request. He resigned and began a campaign for the Republican nomination for governor when Reynolds decided against seeking another term.
Steen told his supporters at an Iowa Capitol event last month that the Satanic Temple’s desire to have a holiday display is “one of the most divisive issues in the state.” He said he is proud to stand up against the group.
“No more marketing to children. No more trying to get them to create Satanic symbols, sing Satanic hymns, partake in Satanic rituals,” Steen told his audience.

While Steen and current leaders of the Department of Administrative Services do not like the Satanic Temple or share its views, show me where in the First Amendment that freedom of religion extends only to those faiths acceptable to government officials.
By the time the legal fight over the Satanic Temple’s rights and state government’s discriminatory treatment winds through the courts, state government well could end up paying a substantial amount to the temple and its lawyers for the deliberate disregard of First Amendment rights.
A different example of free speech was displayed in Ames last weekend.
During the Cy-Hawk men’s basketball game at Hilton Coliseum, the new Iowa State University football coach Jimmy Rogers took center court and fired up fans with some brief remarks. He grabbed everyone’s attention when he shouted, “Let’s beat the f***ing Hawks.”
While the Cyclone crowd endorsed his viewpoint, other Iowans might dissent, given the Cyclone and Hawkeye split across the state. Yet, few would seek to silence a “Go Clones” or “Go Hawks” cheer because of an allegiance to the opposing team.
Even those upset with Rogers’ word choice should take heart that the First Amendment protects such rhetoric.
In a landmark 1971 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a California man for wearing a coat with the anti-war message, “F*** the Draft” emblazoned on it. The court majority wrote, “the mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense.”
The majority continued: “The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us.”
The majority also observed: “That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense, not a sign of weakness but of strength. … So long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability.”
Put another way, whether it is Quakers or Jimmy Rogers, dissent is good.
Those wise men who crafted the First Amendment lived under a king. They knew protecting free expression only when those in power endorse what is said stifles a free exchange of ideas and the ability of people to resist, oppose and make change.
That should go without dissent — no matter which team you root for and irrespective of who won the game.
Randy Evans is director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council and contributes to Pen City Current.