How free is speech?
The recent injunctions by the MW Grand Master of Masons in Florida against WBro. Tim Bryce, who publishes occasional articles on Masonry and distributes them electronically, have engendered a great deal of chatter across the Masonic Internet. Most of the chatter seems to take WBro. Bryce's side, but then, most of the chatter is happening on inflammatory neo-Masonic sites that seek to overthrow or supplant the existing "regular" Masonic order. I won't waste my time or yours detailing what sites those are because none of them seem to get the point. And similarly I am not going to waste time explicating WBro. Bryce's arguments -- they are out there for any Mason to read if he wants to find them. My purpose in writing is to discuss freedom of speech within the Fraternity, and our responsibilities as Masons when we exercise such speech.
When we join a Masonic lodge, we take (for better or worse) an obligation or three. Those obligations enjoin us to stand to and abide by all the laws, rules and regulations of a lodge of Master Masons so far as they shall come to our knowledge. Though we are probably not aware of it at the time, that includes the laws of the Grand Lodge under which our lodge is holden, and to the edicts and decisions of the Grand Master of our Grand Lodge for the time being.
While it is fair to say that it ought to be more clear that our lodges answer to a higher authority and do not exist in a vacuum, and that our petitions probably should include a statement to the effect that the subscriber promises due diligence in abiding by the jurisprudence of not only the lodge but also of the Grand Lodge, the fact is that we are bound by those rules when we are obligated. It follows that we should insist that all of our new Master Masons make a study of not only our lodge bylaws but of all the Grand Lodge regulations (in Indiana, the "Blue Book") that they have subscribed to by taking their obligations.
But that is beside the point. We should hope that ignorance of Grand Lodge law does not cloud the thinking of one who has been Master of a Lodge, and who is presumed by virtue of having served in that position to understand what is and what is not permitted of Masons in his Grand Jurisdiction, and what credence is to be paid to an edict of his Grand Master.
The one overriding rule in Masonry is that if the Grand Master tells you to jump, you ask, "How high?" You do not beat around the bush and try to find loopholes that allow you to continue to do what you were told not to do. You do not excoriate the Grand Master for his decision and allege that he is trying to force you out of the Fraternity. You ask, "how have I offended?" rather than state "I can't see how I can have offended." If you can't get this straight, you leave yourself open to censure, suspension, or even expulsion, depending on how the Grand Master feels about your offense.
And if you are a bystander to something like the Bryce affair, you don't come off the sidelines saying, "Who does his Grand Master think he is?", or "Haven't they heard of the First Amendment in Florida?" -- especially when you don't know both sides of the story, but more importantly because it makes you look like a fool who has reacted mindlessly instead of making a study of Masonic jurisprudence and understanding that the Grand Master is the highest Masonic authority in his Grand Jurisdiction and that there is only free speech and freedom of the press in Masonry as long as Masons tolerate what it is that you have to say.
Perhaps, though, this is simply characteristic of our modern society. Young people don't want to listen to their teachers, or their priests or ministers or rabbis -- or even their parents -- when they are exhorted to live virtuous lives. The concept of an authority figure who is obeyed simply because of his or her authority as granted by law (be it the law of the family, the state, the church, or the Fraternity) is lapsed or weak among young folks who have heeded the siren call of good times (parties, drinking, shacking up, and so forth) and decided that figures of authority are old fuddy-duddies. Sadly enough, it appears that we have let quite a few of these young people slip past our West Gate in recent years, and now we find that they are challenging the very authority to which they obligated themselves on our own altars in the name of an imagined freedom to attack the foundations of the Fraternity from inside its very Temple.
The freedom of speech and press argument in the Bryce case hinges on an apparent application of Florida's Masonic law that prohibits "circularizing". In other words, Masons in Florida appear to be prohibited from sending out manifestos and editorials to other Masons on Masonic subjects that are not sanctioned by the Grand Lodge. This is not an uncommon rule; Indiana had until only a few years ago a similar prohibition against circularization. Lodge publications (newsletters, for instance) are typically exempt from circularization rules, although some Grand Lodges may exercise some editorial control over their content, and may even "license" such publications. In the Bryce case, it appears that WBro. Bryce's content was such that his Grand Master had to take official notice -- particularly when some of the recipients complained to his office that WBro. Bryce was sending it out. The Grand Master responded by informing WBro. Bryce that he could no longer publish his content in Florida without approval. When WBro. Bryce continued to publish outside of Florida, and complaints apparently continued to be received by the Grand Lodge of Florida, the Grand Master once again clamped down.
WBro. Bryce's rejoinder would appear to fit into the "I can't see how I have offended" variety of responses that I described above. WBro. Bryce has decided, even though his Grand Master has enjoined him from publishing his content by any means, that he will continue to make his content available by means other than email -- most likely on private Masonic forums that require a membership login to access. In my opinion this opens WBro. Bryce up to suspension or expulsion -- in point of fact his email outlining his plan to continue publishing should probably accomplish that for him, or would if I were his Grand Master. Rather than being pushed out of the Fraternity as he claims will be the case, he will really have no one to blame but himself for his eventual downfall. His Grand Master has so far been willing to allow sufficient latitude for WBro. Bryce to climb down from his high horse with only minor admonishment. I do not think his Grand Master will hesitate now that the battle line has been drawn, and insofar as it is my privilege to weigh in on how the Grand Master of a Jurisdiction where I am not a member runs his Grand Lodge, I really can't see how WBro. Bryce would have a leg left to stand on.
What is missing in the argument that there is a First Amendment and that there is freedom of speech and press in America is the fact that the First Amendment does not necessarily apply within voluntary associations. The Vallandingham case during the Civil War notwithstanding, it is certainly true that one cannot be stripped of his American citizenship and thrown out of the country simply for espousing radical or even treasonous thoughts.
But within an organization such as Masonry, which has its own internal rules of conduct, speaking out against the organization in a manner calculated to cause unrest among the membership is often grounds for finding oneself on the outside looking in. The argument of the organization is that harmony is to be preserved whenever possible, and that there are official channels for discussing and requesting change. Change is often difficult and can take many years because there is always a sentiment for maintaining the status quo. To step outside the official channels and appeal to the membership at large as WBro. Bryce has done is simply a violation of the principles under which most Grand Lodges operate. He therefore cannot argue that he is being pushed out, when as I have already demonstrated above, he has put himself outside the pale by refusing to heed his Grand Master's admonitions.
As for those who cry that WBro. Bryce's free speech rights have been trampled on and who ask "who does his Grand Master think he is" and "Can Grand Lodges actually tell their brethren what constitutes appropriate behavior?" -- well, the answers are "The supreme Masonic authority in his jurisdiction", and, "Yes, they can." And if you read your organic documents, you will find that it's true.
What is possibly more worrying about this kind of response is the absence of civility and propriety suggested by them. But that is a topic for another day.