Free Speech

In the United States, all public Speech, other than that which is harmful, is equal before the Law. But, not all such speech is equally Evolved. No doubt the framers of the Constitution were seeking to protect specifically the kind of dissident expression that is today still politically repressed in half the world. Part of Mill's defense of Free Speech is that even contrary opinions are beneficial to the whole, since they can spur a prevailing agenda to greater comprehensiveness. However, not all protected Speech is so civic-minded. Some of it is mere emotional venting, and some of it is partisan baiting or posturing. A lot of it is a self-interested demand. More infrequently, what is expressed is an opinion as to what might be collectively beneficial, one that respects principles of intellectual integrity. Now, while the Law does not distinguish between these various types of public Speech, they are Evolvementally unequal--only the last type is worthy of a Phronetocracy. By dignifying the other types, the U. S. Constitution promotes a complacency that is hindering the Evolvement of America into the Participatory Democracy that is presumably its primary Principle.