Controversy Over Flag Amendment

George Will suggests that the framers of the U.S. Constitution did not intend to insure freedom of expression by protecting freedom of speech under the First Amendment (Commentary, June 14). The implications of this line of reasoning are troubling. For example, if we are “allowed” freedom of speech only in its most strictly construed sense, could our voice tone and mannerisms be unprotected by the Constitution? And what about artists? Is a painting protected under the First Amendment, or is it simply an expression and therefore unprotected by the Constitution? Also, doesn’t this type of semantic beclouding create an overall “chilling effect” on the exercise of our rights?

A basic tenet of psychotherapy is that what is not expressed becomes repressed; repression leads to acting out. If as a society our mass expression becomes legally repressed, will we have massive episodes of acting out? Look around, perhaps the future has arrived.

BEN MILES

Huntington Beach