Decorum vs. Freedom of Speech

Rules of Engagement for Freedom

When Harry Vane came to Boston, before there was a United States, the governing forums were sometimes little more than brawls. Physical violence was common. The people had come to the New World to create their version of utopia and they cared deeply about how it operated. Unfortunately, even though they shared the same protest movement and the the same religion, they had deep differences in how to go about achieving goals.

Harry Vane was the closest thing to royalty that had come to America without immediately catching fever and dying. He fancied himself a rebel against his father, and was out to make his mark on the world. As he strode into the dark windowless building that sufficed for the public meeting house, the proceedings must have been more like a radio show than CSPAN, with the men speaking or shouting while less than visible. Often, no one could tell who’d supplied the first punch.

Harry was a persuader and a deal-maker, preferring to have his discussions in private and then to present an accomplished agreement to the crowd. He went to work. John Winthrop Senior’s journal (vol. 1, 1630–1649, pp. 170–172) records the resulting brokered agreement. With the ministers’ support, Winthrop presented a set of rules of engagement meant to renew love — respect — amongst them:

1. That there should be more strictness used in civil government and military discipline.
2. That the magistrates should (as far as might be) ripen their consultations beforehand, that their vote in public might bear (as the voice of God).
3. That, in meetings out of court, the magistrates should not discuss the business of parties in their presence, nor deliver their opinions, etc.
4. That trivial things, etc., should be ended in towns, etc.
5. If the differences fall out among them in public meetings they shall observe these rules: — 1. Not to touch any person differing, but speak to the cause. 2. To express their difference in all modesty and due respect to the court and such [people] as [hold] different [views], etc. 3. Or to propound their difference by way of question. 4. Or to desire a deferring of the cause to further time. 5. After sentence, (if all have agreed,) none shall intimate his dislike privately; or if one dissent, he shall sit down, without showing nay further distaste, publicly or privately. 6. The magistrates shall be more familiar and open with each other, and more frequent in visitations, and shall, in tenderness and love, admonish one another (without reserving any secret grudge,) and shall avoid all jealousies and suspicions, each seeking the honor of another, and all, of the court, not owning the nakedness of one another to private person; in all things seeking the safety and credit of the gospel. 7. To honor the governor in submitting to him the main direction and ordering the business at court. 8. One assistant shall not seem to gratify any man in undoing or crossing another’s proceedings, without due advice with him. 9. They shall grace and strengthen their under officers in their places, etc. 10. All contempts against the court, or any of the magistrates, shall be specially noted and punished; and the magistrates shall appear more solemnly in public, with attendance, appeal, and open notice of their entrance into the court.

Loss of Decorum is Followed by Loss of Respect

These are the forerunner rules of the type of rules recently invoked — many including me would say misapplied — in the Senate in attempt to silence Elizabeth Warren. They are meant to engender respect and to enable the freedom to speak freely but civilly with each other, to honestly disagree while presenting a cohesive leadership to the public. Wouldn’t it be nice if our Senators lived the spirit of these rules, seeking to work across differences. What the leadership seems to have done instead is put them away, bringing one out occasionally like a bludgeon for an opponent, when it suits them.

Jeremiah admonishes the Hebrew people — even as captives to a Babylonian government they did not like — to work for the peace of the city. The government’s primary job is to keep the security and peace of the city. As such they have the authority to recognize the civil rights of each human and to determine rules of engagement for disputes. That said, we expect the rules to be applied justly, equally, with deference and respect to all sides. In the presence of injustice, our heritage and tradition is to persist in resistance.

Should some limited evolved modern version of these rules apply as rules of engagement on social media today?

It was Harry Vane’s commitment to these rules that limited his support for banished Roger Williams while Vane was governor, even though Vane did support Williams in principle. Later, when Williams went to England, Vane likely played a pivotal role guiding Williams’ steps in navigating the powers in London to gain the charter.

Harry Vane became a leader in England, second in power in Oliver Cromwell’s administration. When royalty won a war against Cromwell to regain power, it was Vane’s eloquence that got him beheaded. Charles II understood Harry Vane’s power of persuasion and decided he was too dangerous to let live. It would be up to America to continue the rebellion.