Freedom of speech and definition of voice

The link connected to the title above has started a conversation in my head about free speech and the existence and value of voice in America.

1. Americans are given the right to freedom of speech through the constitution. Simple enough. Most people hear about it regularly via the ACLU, and have their own definition. Sadly, I think advocates for the freedom of speech are pigeonholed as liberals who fight for the rights of adult store owners, racists, and propaganda makers.

2. Freedom of speech, however it is applied, is important for justice. The link to Stuart Buck's blog had a conversation over the use of eminent domain on privately owned property by other private companies via public office (most of American knows about the current cases). The conversation slowly moved to the possibility of freedom of speech being hurt by the potential of the land that people stand on to have a voice being figuratively taken out from underneath them.

3. What does it mean to have a voice? For the Christian - "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" James 1:27. The existence of a voice seems significant to this passage in the modern day. If we are to look after "widows and orphans" (who happened to be the least powerful people in the middle eastern culture) I think we need to seek to understand who the powerless in our world are. Are they still widows and orphans? In many ways yes. Do a little research to the effects of foster care on children, and you will find some astounding stuff (check out books by Dave Pelzer). Are the powerless the people that are under dictators in smaller countries? Are they the homeless, the elderly, the handicapped?

For the freedom of speech to be effective, I surmise that people do not just need to be able to speak, but need to be able to be heard. Some people do not want to be heard, but when injustice occurs (like I see with the recent use of eminent domain) people without money and good attorneys often have no voice. They spoke on may TV stations, but in the court systems, where it mattered, the voice of the poorer (poorer because these people were by no means poor) and much less powerful were easily drowned out by the public officials and lawyers of wealthy corporations.

Voice is still found in some places. There have been multiple cases where WalMart has sought to buy land to develop a supercenter. The people of the towns have come together and ardently proven that bringing a WalMart into town does not necessarily increase the number of quality jobs or standard of living in an area. If anything, they have proven that it reduces the standard of living more than anything. These people have found voice by banding together and raising valid arguments for the problems that the powerful corporation pose to their area. It appears then that from the examples of the denial of WalMart, one thing that gives a voice is a number of people combined with a body of facts about a the problem.

As the economy becomes the only factor that determines the "health" of a community, people with wealth need to "care for the orphan and the widow" by ensuring that the powerless are given a voice and a place to stand with that voice before the land is taken away. Power is a prime factor in giving a voice to groups of people, and hopefully, someday, economic situations will not be the determining factor of powers have and have nots.