REPRESENT! A Minority Report

Any country as diverse as the US will inevitably contain minority groups that are marginalized. Such groups may be divided along economic, ethnic, ideological or moral lines, all of which have an ability to provoke controversy and hostility. The Bill of Rights gives US citizens the right to free speech, implying a freedom of expression and practice. Though there is a limit on the extent of this freedom, the limit exists to ensure the well being of the citizenry. Free speech is therefore a freedom that can be fully enjoyed and exercised as long as it does not threaten the safety of other individuals.

In the landmark ruling of Schenck v. United States, it was determined that free speech could be abridged if it presented a “clear and present danger” to the government or private individuals. The classic example of shouting fire in a crowded theater exhibits the seriousness of abusing this right. Such an inappropriate act would endanger other occupants of the theater, as the rush to exit would cause injuries and possible fatalities.

The mission of the government is to serve the people and to provide for the common welfare. This cannot always be possible when a community of individuals participates in a belief that contradicts conventional standards of society.  To cite an example in the modern context, I will consider the YFZ ranch founded by Warren Jeffs, which caused controversy over perceived sexual abuse of young girls by older males.

The Yearning For Zion ranch was a community that operated in complete isolation from the rest of the United States. Members practiced societal customs that would seem both unacceptable and disturbing through the lens of mainstream America. Jeffs was guilty of arranging a marriage between a fourteen year old girl and her nineteen year old cousin.

 A phone call from a female minor prompted a federal raid on the YFZ compound, which resulted in the removal of the girls on the grounds that underage marriage was the cause of abuse. Critics argued that the raid infringed on the beliefs of the community, and that the government had acted unjustly. Eventually the minors were returned to the ranch.

The government acted to protect these girls from a perceived threat. That in actuality the claim was exaggerated is relevant, but my focus is on the reason why the government acted, not on whether it was morally right or wrong. Child abuse is a practice that is universally condemned. Agencies of the federal government have been created to prevent child abuse from continuing. The YFZ ranch, perceived as a community that took part in such a practice, was targeted by the government because it contradicted societal norms and threatened the well being of individuals. On the opposing perspective, the practices of the YFZ community seemed perfectly acceptable to its members. Their beliefs were legitimized by their religious views, but to mainstream society it was appalling. It is no surprise that such a community would feel marginalized.

The abridgement of any right can cause an individual or group to feel marginalized. But such a constraint is necessary to protect the rest of society. In the US, people are free to believe what they will, but only so long as it does not harm others. The government must act in the interest of as many individuals and groups as it can, but it is virtually impossible to serve the entirety of the political and moral organizations in America. The only option is to do the best they can, representing the majority views and marginalizing minorities that conflict with societal customs.