On the Stupidity of the Civility Resolution

Is the above title uncivil? If so, according to whom?

So is the treacherous ground the City Council is treading. For over two centuries speech of almost all forms has been protected as a constitutional right, as an inalienable right, as a civil right. The courts, even despite their inappropriate activism, have consistently sided with protecting almost all manner of speech – even speech that most of us would find offensive.

Civility Resolutions are Antithetical to Democracy
The basic tenets of a democracy are founded on open, encouraged, discourses and debates. These free exchanges of ideas – free of government intervention and restriction – are an explicit outlet of our human nature that implicitly fosters democracy. As we become informed by evaluating all perspectives, we make a choice – we vote. Open debate is one of the oldest means by which humanity can interact civilly.

Do exchanges of ideas and debates become heated? Do these debates become unruly? Of course. Does that make them uncivil to the point that they should be regulated or otherwise restricted? Of course not.

The alternative to open discourse and debate (regardless how unruly or heated they become) is true incivility. We have witnessed the brutal effects of past and present forms of government that squelch speech. Note that in these regimes speech is squelched according to what the government claims is uncivil - to them. As these regimes have repeatedly demonstrated, the alternative to open forms of expression is not pretty – it’s lethal. Therefore it is only in those societies where speech is restricted by dictum and fiat where incivility reigns.

And herein lies where the seriousness of such a resolution exists. When government starts defining what acceptable speech is, the government enters into the netherworld of opinions and biases, not to say that it starts acting illegally. In essence, the government ceases to be a form of democracy and starts becoming a censorship.

Federalism
Forcing and even defining civility is wrong and contrary to the foundation of our form of government.

Consider Alexander Hamilton’s words (Federalist Papers) in preparing the republic for what was to come: “A torrent of malignant passions will be let loose”. These “passions”, of all varieties, were forms of expressions that neither Hamilton nor the other authors of the Federalist Papers opposed.

And as to forcing civility, Hamilton speaks to us: “For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.”

Exactly.

Implied Civility Enforcement via the Democratic Process
By definition, and by implication, civility is one of the intended outcomes of a democracy. One interesting inherent feature of a democracy is that it auto-censors. Namely, it automatically, sans the force of government, promotes civility. How?

A senator calls soldiers stupid and uneducated. Is such a statement uncivil? Many would think so. Is it illegal? No. Should it be censored or otherwise restricted by the civility police? No. Will the senator’s presidential bid ever come to fruition? A near certainty of no. Neat how this democracy thing works.

Consider this statement: “The President marked the half-way post on the road to the sewers.” Is it uncivil? Of course – equating a president with a sewer (no pun intended as related to Marco Island) is uncivil and offensive. Did anyone complain? No – not even President Abraham Lincoln when these words were directed towards him and widely spread due to the popularity of the words’ author – H.L. Mencken.

Summary
It should serve as a reminder that the success of the American experiment in constitutional democracy is owed predominantly to the open uncensored and even uncivil (whatever that means) debate. As implied in the famous position of the country’s greatest poet, civil disobedience is a duty. Some interpret disobedience as uncivil, though it clearly is not – it’s a duty.

Consider the opposite. Fidel Castro is fond of saying “People can say anything they want – as long as I agree with it.” Try living in that environment for a while (few do).

The lack of civility may be uncomfortable and even offensive at times. Attempts to regulate uncivil speech, or even define it, or promote just civil speech is not appropriate for a democracy. Uncomfortable, yes. Needs to be regulated – please no, as such an action invites repercussions far worse than being uncomfortable.

And Lastly
The news is good. A heartfelt congratulations, appreciation and admiration for Council Chairperson DiSciullo for pulling this ill-conceived referendum. To Mrs. DiSciullo – democracy is a great thing, especially to those of us that are here because we lost it. Democracy is also uncomfortable, and as you contemplate the flak that surely you have received, may you feel comfortable in the knowledge that democracy is what you have just solidified.