22/4/2004

Anteayer vi la película "The People vs. Larry Flint", que cuenta la historia de la lucha del dueño de la revista pornográfica Hustler para defender la libertad de expresión en los Estados Unidos de América. Es una película dura de la que se pueden sacar algunas enseñanzas, especialmente para los intolerantes del gobierno argentino.

El caso "Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Falwell" llegó hasta la Suprema Corte, y estas son algunas expresiones del informe final redactado por el juez Rehnquist:

At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty -and thus a good unto itself- but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.

When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market...

The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large."

One of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures. Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks," The candidate who vaunts his spotless record and sterling integrity cannot convincingly cry `Foul!' when an opponent or an industrious reporter attempts to demonstrate the contrary."

"The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas."

Recordemos el contenido de la Primera Enmienda a la Constitución de los Estados Unidos:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Todos estos principios de respeto a las ideas de los demás son los que brillan por su ausencia en la camada de dirigentes que maneja nuestro país.