How Free is Free Speech? Controversial Opinions and the First Amendment
I've been reading some lively discussion on a sister Web site concerning a particular political entertainer/instigator and recent comments he's made on his television show. Regardless of the political leanings of the commentators, everyone responding has strong opinions about the motive behind the comments, and whether the comments should even have been allowed to be aired. The entire conversation got me thinking, and led to my question:
When should free speech not be allowed?
Regardless of how many sides there are on a given topic, somebody ends up saying something like "they shouldn't be allowed to say that." The reasons that people feel certain opinions should not be voiced are many: They could incite violence. They could be hurtful to certain groups of people. They are lies. They are hateful and offensive. They are irresponsible. For these and other reasons, individuals or groups think everyone would be better off if those views were never expressed, and some are pushing for laws that limit the ability of some of these opinions to be voiced.
My first problem with this line of thinking is somebody has to make a determination as to what types of comments are hateful, lies, offensive, hurtful, irresponsible, or could incite violence. The fact is we live in a world where there are many opinions held by many people on many topics. ANY statement made by ANY individual could be construed by SOMEBODY as falling into one of those categories. Where are you going to find a totally impartial mediator who can make these kinds of decisions and be fair to everyone involved? You can't.
My second problem is when you limit one side's ability to speak freely, definitions used to reach the decision can be used by others to eliminating opinions by all kinds of groups. For example, several years ago there was a strong push to disallow pornography on any hosting sites in the United States. Sounds good, doesn't it? Yet the wording used in this proposition was that any data deemed "offensive" should be removed. Pornography certainly seems to fit the bill. And yet to an atheist, my church's Web site might be considered "offensive". The Boy Scouts could see their Web sites removed because of certain groups who feel that their devotion to God and country, or their policies regarding the hiring of scoutmasters, are felt to be "offensive". Eventually somebody could have found everything on the Internet offensive. No more US-based Web sites. Wouldn't that be fun? As much as I would like to see certain types of information removed from the Internet, I realize that what I find perfectly acceptable someone else could take offense to.
Finally, these arguments all ignore the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. US citizens are granted the right to freedom of speech, and the First Amendment states Congress cannot create any laws preventing that. Any government official who tries to put laws into place that prevent public expression of opinions on the Ku Klux Klan, or Communism, or the making of homemade bombs, or the legalities of allowing immigrants to enter our country improperly, is violating the First Amendment rights of his or her constituents.
So does this mean that we can say anything anytime we want without fear of repercussion? No. There are always consequences to our actions. You can say what you want, but you may have to pay a price for it. It's perfectly legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. However, you may find yourself in court when people in the theater are injured because of your irresponsible use of your free speech rights.
We can't tell people they can't voice their opinions and concerns. In fact, sometimes hearing all sides of an issue lets us understand why people believe as they do, and give us options as to how we can better get along in spite of our differences. So the next time somebody says something that irritates you and you wish you could shut them up, remember that if you do, you could be next. Are you really willing to give that right up just to make a point?
Article submitted Monday, March 15, 2010 & read 611 times.
Leave your comments through ProBlogz:
» left by John Wilder (1 year 333 days ago.)
Outstanding points. I was a member of the previously mentioned discussion. I was accused of being clueless.There is a formula in science that says; Thesis + Antithesis+ Synthesis. It is a market place of ideas.Kudos on a great article.Respond to this comment
» left by John Wilder (1 year 333 days ago.)
Typo thesis+antithesis=synthesisRespond to this comment