Ivan Kurill: "To bury America's freedom" early "

“I will speak out one more time with the criticism of the idealization of the United States, and then, perhaps, I will write from a different angle - and then there is a continuous disappointment. So. In the history of the United States there are many stories when people suffered for words,” the American historian writes on his Facebook page.

“In the colonial era, I lived in the colony of the Massachusetts Bay Anne Khatchinson,” she decided to object to the preacher (supplement him) during the sermon, as a result she became the leader (heresies) of the antinomians and died in the wild spring forest, where she was expelled by the well -meaning colonists (Roger Williams acted wiser, he looked at this business, he looked at this business, he looked at this business He gathered their supporters and took them from the Massachusetts colony, founding a new one, where the freedom of speech and religion was first recorded).

I have already told about the abolitionists who refused to listen (literally accepting the "Gag Rule").

In the 1920s, the era of prosperity came in the United States - everything was fine. That's just the best American writers lived this decade in Paris. Not only because Paris was good - in America "it was stuffy." (Yes, the dry law was part of the problem; but there was also a limitation of discussions, and fines for a kiss on the movie screen, and the consequences of a great red fear). In the early 1950s, as we know, the United States survived the era of McCartism: among other things, communists and people convicted of sympathy for them, deprived of work, passports (for trips abroad), the activists of the Communist Party ended up in prisons (then the Supreme Court decided that the preaching of the world revolution and the Marxist belief in the future victory And the overthrow of the government, while the Communists are not urging the assault on the Capitol, the Communists were released from prison).

From these stories (there are more, in fact) we can draw two conclusions: the first is that freedom of speech in America, although fixed with the first correction, is disputed all the time, and all the time requires the struggle for it. Each generation is faced with its challenging freedom of speech - it does not exist as a kind of good, once and for all built the foundation.

The second conclusion is that from each such crisis, American society taxied with an expanded understanding of freedom of speech. Attempts to limit freedom all the time were a response to some new challenges - and they, as a rule, ended with the defeat of those who limited freedom. It can be assumed that the current clinch will be allowed by the victory of freedoms, not limiters. This victory, most likely, will not be the victory of those political forces that now feel the injured: the conflict itself will reformat the political field of America before the Supreme Court (most likely, it) will put an end. But it is too early to bury America's freedom. "