The Framers Felt it Important Enough
to Make It the First One.
Volume 11, Number 51
Issue 547
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It’s the “First,” not the “tenth” (of the amendments made in 1791). They (the statesmen who wrote it—the “framers”) thought it important enough to make it the first one and not place it later in numerical sequence. So, if it’s good enough for Congress to make “free speech” the highest priority, shouldn’t it be good enough for us—as individual people and as business owners—to use it as one of our own greatest personal rules and mottoes?
Though this First Amendment speaks what appears to be absolute terms, our “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,” I’ve NEVER thought that it meant that anyone can say whatever they want whenever they want, but then, I never say whatever I want whenever I want, either. Though I am very outspoken, personally and professionally, I think very carefully about what I want to say and when I want to say it. I am careful, yet programmed. I am insightful but, above all, respectful. Often, the worst thing I can do is to disrespect by not saying. If I have the highest level of respect and professional obligation, then I must make what opinions I have known or I am disrespecting the relationship. I just always must make sure that I make my comments and express my own freedom of speech with respect in hopes that it will be respected.
I, also, in every aspect of my personal and professional lives, want people to express and discuss their views—especially controversial ones—to their friends, legislators, social circles and the public. This is the only way that we honor all of those who have come before us by attempting to make our cultural melting pot of a society better.
Correctly interpreted, the First Amendment does not place restrictions on speech, except for things like pornography, obscenities, indecent language, deceptive (business) and discriminatory advertising (job listings) and practices, words used for fraudulent or criminal purposes, broken contractual promises, unlicensed radio and television broadcasts, libel and slander, copyright and trademark and similar matters, and unauthorized disclosure of government documents (regarding spies and secrets). But, most importantly, and, thankfully, it doesn't attempt to restrain private discussions (save for the above-listed ones) at all. Our Constitution is a series of overt constraints on government, not on individuals or even powerful corporations or even the teeniest of sole proprietorships.
The amendment prohibits government restrictions, not private ones, on "the freedom of speech," but it is a mistake to argue that no speech can be restricted, again, especially in the areas cited in the above paragraph, and for, most importantly, when it simply comes to using your head as a smart person. The latter is missed by a lot of business people but known and lived in every breath by the savviest of them.
I read a lot in the news media about “free speech.” In every case, the question is whether the particular "speech" is within the "freedom" comprehended by the amendment. The key word is “Congress” because our Constitution doesn’t get involved about the private choices involved when meeting friends and hiring professionals. It’s up to our own personal and moral and professional codes to have our own First Amendment in the way that suits us best.
I meet people everyday who decide to “come into” my life because they agree with me on a personal or professional level of “free speech,” but the smartest people that come into my life are the ones that come in because they want to embrace someone with differences, either to learn from them or to be mentored by them or to just have “a reality check.”
My great friend and my own mentor (yep, I have them, too) Armand Roman always reminds me--by both his words and his actions (whether he knows I am listening or watching or not)--that the strength of any relationship is its ability to enjoy discussing and reveling in the differences, not just in the similarities, and by truly learning from each other—and you only learn from the differences.
I constantly see people getting upset with each other over the fact that they disagree over issues such as politics, the environment, religion and business. But what if we were all the same? What if I went out of my way to hire only people that agreed with my personal opinions? Wouldn’t I only have people that agreed with ME and, therefore, wouldn’t represent a valid cross-section of the population as a whole or as a specific component of my target market?
What if I only wanted to have friends and clients and who were only Republicans and not Democrats? What if I only listened to mentors and counselors who were only pro-development and anti-environmental protection? What if I wanted a legal or policy advisor who was extremely conservative and not at all open to liberal ideas? Quickly, I would form one-sided opinions that would not be inclusive of a society that is constantly changing and revising its opinions. The only thing that is certain is that change is inevitable and I have to be ready, willing and an enabler for that.
The smartest clients are ones, like my friend Roman, that know that they want professionals to serve them that have diverse, yet well-informed views. I pride myself that I want to look at life as a constant and ever-lasting learning experience and that I want to be able to have conversations with everyone that center around respect for individuality and respect for each person’s own beliefs and opinions.
We are a melting pot not just of ethnicity and culture but also of political and socio-economic and of professional business opinions. I want to learn from everyone’s opinions and then work towards compromise and respect and not for forceful denial and exclusiveness. That’s why I try very hard to be a business advisor that makes me out to often be a “contrarian” who attempts to bring out that “devil’s advocate” kind of thinking that makes plans and assumptions be revised and “tweaked” to be better once they become inclusive and diverse.
It often costs me clients because people really don’t understand that I want to be diverse and challenging and it makes initial meetings with potential clients often be strained until they realize that the best professionals try to take a contrarian’s point of view in order to be able to validate assumptions and goals that they have decided upon without external professional input.
If an “attack” and criticism from a contrarian’s opinion can be withstood, doesn’t that mean that you have a really good chance of success with your idea or business plan? That’s why you should seek out differing opinions about how to handle your business or tax ideas.
People should embrace those persons in their lives who have differing opinions and not shun them. Have your own First Amendment and make it applicable to your daily life. The smartest people want people around them--especially professionals--that have the courage to go “against the grain.” Those contrarians are hard to find because we all want to belong and agree and it is, after all, human nature to want to avoid conflict. We all want to be around people with like minds and opinions to feel comfort and not conflict but you must have the courage to expose yourself to diversity. If you find a professional who has the self-confidence to state disagreement in the spirit of compromise and making things better, stick to them like glue, because, life in-and-of-itself is a melting pot.
David B. Robinson, CPA
Index of Previous Issues of Tax Fax
