Guest panel discuss Constitution

Home Archived News Guest panel discuss Constitution

Moria Dailey

Published: September 28, 2005

PJC celebrated Constitution Day with an open panel discussion about the First Amendment, which guarantees Americans the right to free speech.

Dr. David Sam, vice-president of PJC’s student affairs, explained that Senator Robert Byrd helped to enact a law in 2004 requiring educational programs on the Constitution.  The law stated that any college or university that received federal funding must have a celebration to honor Constitution Day, which is September 17th.

“Since teaching and learning is our mission, we thought the best idea would be a panel discussion,” said Dr. Sam of PJC’s choice in the nature of the celebration.  He also explained that the five panel members each had experience in a different area that dealt with free speech: law, media, student, teacher, and government.

Local attorney Tom Gilliam, Pensacola News Journal’s assistant opinion editor Reggie Dogan, PJC’s SGA president Veronica Walker, history professor at PJC Mike Gilbert, and State Representative Dave Murzin made up the panel.  Narla Zinermon, of PJC’s English and Communications Department, was the moderator.

Each panel member was asked a question that was in relation to his or her particular career.  The questions asked dealt with subjects such as what the legal limits to free speech are, the historical background of free speech, as well as to what degree do students self-censor in the classroom because of the fear of penalty if their instructor feels differently.

According to Tom Gilliam, the only areas in which the government can step in and regulate speech are obscenity (something that appeals to the prurient sexual interest of the majority with no literary or artistic value), defamation (or causing harm to someone’s reputation with false information), instigating violence, “fighting words” and commercial speech. 

The government cannot step in when there is any sort of literary or artistic value to an act that is defined as an exercise of the right to free speech, nor when said act is a form of political commentary.

When asked if hate groups should be afforded the same freedom of speech give to any other citizen or organization, Reggie Dogan replied, “A short answer to that, no.” 

But, while answering the second part of the question, which was should the constitution be amended to restrict these types of activities, Dogan had a much longer answer.

He said that we must be careful amending the constitution, especially dealing with free speech, because it is a cornerstone of our society. 

 “To overcome lies, we must use truth.  To overcome hate, we must use love.  And to overcome an untruthful argument, we must come up with and use a better argument,” Dogan said.