“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.” 1st Amendment, United States Constitution.
Following the American Revolution, our Founding Fathers sought to establish a government that would prevent repeating the abuses and overreach of the government they had just revolted against, and that would safeguard individual liberties. Our Founders worked to write a constitution and Amendments that recognized many rights as inherent and enumerated several that they thought were of particular importance to a free society, including the 1st amendment, recognizing the vital role that freedom of speech, press, and religion, assembly, and petition plays in a free society. The founders were also
careful to elaborate that the constitution does not invent rights, but rather that the rights it recognizes are inherent to the people in our free society, some are endowed by nature or God and that the constitution and amendments only exist to formally acknowledge those rights, explicitly to protect them. So important was Freedom of Speech/religion to the Founding Fathers that they made it the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, supported by the Second, the right to bear arms to protect the right to free speech.
Throughout history the First Amendment has played a pivotal role in safeguarding democracy against internal and external threats. During times of war, political turmoil, and social upheaval, the First Amendment has served as a bulwark against attempts to suppress dissent and stifle free expression. From the Civil Rights Movement to the Women’s Suffrage Movement to the LGBTQ+ Rights Movement, the First Amendment has empowered citizens to challenge injustice, advocate for change, and hold their government accountable. Without the protections afforded by the First Amendment, these transformative social movements may have never gained the momentum needed to effect meaningful change.
In our modern society, the importance of the First Amendment cannot be overstated. The rise of digital communication platforms and social media has democratized the exchange of ideas, allowing individuals from all walks of life to participate in public discussions on a level never even dreamed of before in history. However, this newfound freedom of expression has also brought new challenges, such as online harassment, disinformation campaigns, and calls for censorship. In navigating these challenges, it is essential to uphold the principles of the First Amendment while also addressing legitimate concerns about the spread of hate speech and misinformation. By fostering a culture of open dialogue, critical thinking, and civic engagement, we can ensure that the First Amendment continues to serve as a cornerstone of democracy and freedom for generations to come.
In “V for Vendetta,” the totalitarian regime depicted in the film serves as a chilling warning against the dangers of governmental overreach, in a society where there is no freedom of speech. Through the lens of a dystopian future, the film explores themes of surveillance, censorship, and the distinct lack individual freedoms in favor of an overbearing and abusive totalitarian and fascist government. The government’s control over the media, violent suppression of dissent, manipulation of public perception and heavy handed “rules for thee and not for me” approach, mirror real-life instances of governmental overreach, where authoritarian regimes seek to consolidate power and silence opposition, and in our own modern society echo abuses we see from the political elite on a daily basis.
One of the most striking parallels between “V for Vendetta” and real life is the use of
intrusive mass surveillance to monitor and control the population. In the film, the
government’s pervasive surveillance state enables it to maintain a tight grip on society,
stifling dissent and quashing any resistance. This echoes real-life concerns about
government surveillance programs, such as the NSA’s mass collection of phone and
internet data, which have raised significant privacy and civil liberties concerns in the Post
9/11 world. Another area of governmental overreach depicted in both the film and real life is the suppression of dissent and the manipulation of public perception. In the film, the
government controls the media through censorship and propaganda, shaping the narrative
to suit its own agenda. There is only ONE source of news and media or entertainment, the
BTN (British Television Network), a state owned and operated propaganda machine.
These manipulations of information serves to maintain the government’s grip on power
and undermine the populace’s ability to think critically and question authority. Similarly,
in real life, governments may seek to silence dissenting voices through censorship,
intimidation, or even violence, in an effort to maintain their hold on power and suppress
opposition. Recently it has been proposed that a new alliance of “trusted” news networks
be created, and be treated as the only credible source for information. In my opinion, this
is a terrible idea that will lead to rampant corruption and bias ruling public opinion even
more than it already does. The battles over free speech are never ending, despite being a
foundational principle and cornerstone of our society, there is always something
happening that challenges our understanding of what Freedom of Speech does or does
not, entail. There are countless court cases reaching all the way to the Supreme Court
dealing with the interpretation and application of the 1st amendment. One such watershed
case is “New York Times Co. v. United States” (1971), which stands as a landmark
decision for freedom of the press, and curbing governmental overreach.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times and Washington
Post, affirming their right to publish classified government documents related to the
Vietnam War, despite vehement objections from the Nixon administration. The Court
held that the government’s attempts to prevent the publication of the documents violated
the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of the press. This decision reaffirmed the
principle that the press serves as a vital check on governmental power and has the right to
publish information of public concern, even when it may be embarrassing or inconvenient for the government. However, context and timing for sensitive documents, particularly those that can legitimately endanger lives or damage national interests require a more circumspect approach. Causing harm and mass panic are genuine dangers that must be considered.
Similarly, the Supreme Court case “Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
School District” (1969) addressed the issue of freedom of speech rights in the venue of
public schools. Here, the Court ruled in favor of students who had been suspended for
wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Court held that students do not
“shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse
gate” and that schools could only restrict speech if it materially disrupted the educational
process. This decision affirmed the principle that students have the right to engage in
symbolic speech and express their opinions on matters of public concern, even within a
school environment. We are fortunate in the United States, to have had founders that
were so forward thinking and revolutionary not only in their actions, but in their ideals.
Without their forethought and radical ideas like individual rights, we would undoubtedly
be in a much darker world, a world controlled only by tyranny, cronyism, and nepotism.
The rights protected by the US Constitution are wholly unique in the history of the world,
and the United States was built to be a light, a bastion of freedom for the rest of
humanity. In “V for Vendetta,” the story takes place in a not too distant future dystopian version of England, where a terrible virus had broken out and decimated the population not only of England, but in the western world too, as the US is alluded to have fallen into utter chaos, while England prevails due to their strict rules and totalitarian government along with
some convenient antidotes that come at the cost of bowing before the boots of the new
fascist regime. The lead character of V emerges as a symbol of resistance against
governmental tyranny and a champion of individual freedom (which is rather different
than the original books by Alan Moore, where V represents Anarchy vs Tyranny, rather
than Freedom vs Tyranny).
In the film V embodies the spirit of our First Amendment, challenging the government’s control over information and inspiring others to question authority and assert their rights. V’s use of symbolic and flowery speech, combined with recognizable visual imagery such as the Guy Fawkes mask and the letter “V” (Roman numeral for the number “5”, which hearkens back to the 5 th of November being a pivotal and crucial date in the story), serve as powerful reminders of the importance of free expression in the face of oppression. Truth can so easily be lost, atrocities and crimes, buried and forgotten, when nothing can be questioned.
Throughout the film, V’s struggle against the totalitarian regime serves as an allegory for
the broader fight for First Amendment rights in society. By resisting censorship, challenging propaganda, and rallying the populace to reclaim their freedom, V embodies the principles of free speech, press, and assembly enshrined in the First Amendment. His message resonates with audiences as a call to action, urging them to remain vigilant in the defense of their rights and liberties. Something all too easy to forget in real life, as it is so easy to manipulate the masses with fear and negativity, to sway public opinion on matters that allow governments to erode rights and place even stricter rules and regulations on the citizenry, in the name of “safety.”
“V for Vendetta” serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of the First Amendment in safeguarding the ideals of democracy and preserving individual freedom.
It shows a dystopian future where the government is in total control of society, and has the final say on everything. Citizens have little to no privacy or personal freedom, there are curfews in place, Social police enforcers called “Fingermen” act with total autonomy, enforcing their will however they wish. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and one of the first scenes of the film is our co-lead Evey Hammond, as she is nearly raped by what is supposed to be a police officer, before she is rescued by V. With no checks and balances, nobody to hold them accountable, the Fingermen are nothing more than a brute squad of paid criminals hiding behind a badge.
The film is a cautionary tale about how easily we could see our freedoms snuffed out. All it takes is a big enough external threat to sway the masses into capitulating. Look at what happened in the US after 9/11, with the Patriot act and other legislation that has allowed our government to run rampant, and rough shod trampling all over the rights of American Citizens, in the name of national security. Our Founding Father’s recognized the potential for these types of abuses and cautioned against it, Thomas Jefferson once wrote in a letter to James Madison: “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery” and I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment.
The HolloWords of the Mad 