Every now and then it’s good to reread the Declaration of Independence, that most eloquent testament to personal liberty and independent thought — and to government’s proper role as a protector of these rights. This morning I found myself reflecting, once again, on Jefferson’s critical words about the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These are natural rights of all individuals, equally. And that simple fact also necessarily moderates the rights. A person cannot exercise his or her liberty of thought and action to the point of preventing others from doing the same. In a society, there can be no liberty to assault or otherwise directly victimize others. Yet on the other hand, in a free society persons cannot be considererd victims by the mere fact that they are offended or made uncomfortable by others’ thoughts and actions. While out and about, there can be no right to a perfectly agreeable environment.

These are bedrock principles, echoed in our First Amendment law of free expression. Early cases recognized that speech could be prohibited where it would likely result in direct, physical harm to others, for example. Cases going back some 50 years also made it clear, however, that government is not empowered to proscribe expression on the ground that it is politically unpopular, or harsh, or unrefined.

But in recent years there has been an increasing tendency for constituents to elicit their public officials’ help to silence their neighbors and control the marketplace of expression. And government has too often been quick to comply, enacting restrictions, sometimes with a green light from the courts. Whether it’s corporate political expression that some fear too persuasive, broadcast images that some deem too “indecent,” or flag-burning demonstrations that some consider too insolent, government regulation for such reasons poses great danger to the core concept of a nation built on liberty.