YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATRE

In case we haven't noticed, the nation is at another of those historic crossroads. Nationally -- what role should our government play in a society bulging with socio-economic crises? Internationally -- what role should our power play in a world bulging with powerful new players? In a democracy, we debate our choices which means everyone gets an equal voice. Or so it says here....!

Writing that principle into the Constitution was the easy part. Making it work to the advantage of the nation is where the ink on the pages begins to smudge. Among the biggest smudge-rs these days are the bloggers, Rush Limbaughs, Bill O'Reillys, Glenn Becks, and Anne Coulters!

When Supreme Court Justice Holmes is quoted as saying, "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre," that laid down the marker for dissenters. Much like Hippocrates supposedly did for doctors when he said, "First, do no harm." However, the eternal question that accompanies this eternal flame of free speech is, "How do we distinguish between the free and the carefree use of our speech?"

Over an expensively, un-democratic Spiaggia lunch at President Obama's favorite Italian restaurant, I challenged my constitutional lawyer friend: "We're all created equal, yes, but don't some end up more equal than others? Aren't some public dissents more informed and useful than others?"

He instructed me, "In a free society, who is to judge that? And once you try, freedom is gone."

"But when today's dissenters raise outlandish, misinformed taunts -- Obama is a Muslim, a socialist, a traitor, a baby-killer -- how exactly does this advance the public dialog and the national interest?"

"The Founding Fathers anticipated this, and so by giving everyone the same freedom to dissent, the good eventually prevails," he smiled contentedly.

"And what about the the one rotten apple that spoils the barrel,?" I argued. By now the clients were staring.

"Once some someone decides whose apple is rotten, you start to have tyranny not democracy!" The stares grew a bit louder.

"And once the people are so thoroughly confused with angry misinformation, how long do we still have our democracy? How can the protests of a US Senator, a member of the State Department, a college professor, a street gang leader, and a 70-IQ dropout all be put on the same playing field of public dissent?", I dissented. "Teams, schools, hospitals, even religions recognize the difference between their first and third strings."

My lawyer friend frowned, "That's not democracy!" Guests shifted in their seats pretending this noxious duo weren't really here.

"No," I insisted, "that's reality."

Following our window-table dust-up, we were ready to order. I asked the waiter for an antipasto and lasagna. My friend put on his glasses and studied the menu much more precisely. Finally he looked up to the waiter, "Tell me, does the chef have a favorite choice for the day?"

I'm sorry, but I had to interrupt: "Hey, if everyone and everything is so damn equal, then why are you asking about an expert chef's expert choice? Why not just go with your democratic menu as is....?"

And, as always with us, the argument started all over again. The waiter patronizingly shook his head, and disappeared into the kitchen. I'm thinking to myself, everyone of the cooks back there has the same right to cook. But I'd swear on a stack of constitutions that some of them cook a lot better lasagna than others!