The First Amendment, we are so regularly told, protects our freedom of speech. This is of course generally a good thing, and without doubt one of the reasons behind the strength of our Republic. Still, can it really mean the right to say anything we want to anyone, at any time or manner we choose? Especially in the light of the recent attacks in Tucson, it does seem a good time to explore the content and intent of our speech.
It strikes me that decorum and consideration of our surroundings ought to play some role in our talk, and that such ideas deserve their day. Does anyone really want to insult friends, or even adversaries, when the situation simply does not require the full expression of our thoughts? Perhaps we become nothing more than busybodies when we comment on things which may not be any of our business.
Yet even in political discourse I believe that a line may be crossed. Portraying Barack Obama as Hitler is as unfair as portraying George W. Bush as Hitler, and ultimately nothing more than inflammatory. It cannot help forward political debate; consequently, is it truly wise to use such divisive imagery even if within one's rights to do so?
Yet it happens all the time on both sides of the aisle. It has indeed happened across the political spectrum since the dawn of our nation. Even the current President has used inflammatory speech, when he said during the 2008 campaign that you bring in a gun when your opponent has a knife during in a fight. Still, that we have survived it so far cannot truly justify certain forms of talk, innuendo, and outright insult.
Just something that we need to consider as debate rages on in the political and personal arenas of our lives. Even without any causal connection between shrill rhetoric and insane action, we must ask ourselves whether we should express ourselves that way, or if, perhaps, we are better than that.
Showing posts with label Free Speech. First Amendment.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Speech. First Amendment.. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Free Speech Dilemma
We Americans boast routinely about free speech, being so proud of the right that we put it smack at the top of the Bill of Rights. So, perhaps, it should be. But there are unfortunately degrees to which it must be seen negatively.
There are folks who opine that free speech means the right to say offensive things. They forget that there are two ways in which someone is offended: either when the listener is a fool, or when the speech in question is genuinely offensive.
No one has a moral right to voice offensive remarks solely for the sake of making offense; that is simply rudeness at best and insulting and vulgar at worst. To say that they have such a right under the guise of free speech is really only to hide irresponsible behavior behind a pretty face. As rights only grow from responsibilities, it is reasonable to argue that the right to speak freely comes from the obligation to speak truthfully, in the reasonable interests of ourselves and the general society, and considerately, so far as circumstances may allow.
Still, the only way to really stifle morally offensive speech is censorship, and the problem with censorship is that it is only good when good people are in charge. When bad people hold the reigns, then good and necessary free speech will be prohibited. It is a risk we cannot take.
In the end, though, no one has the right to say offensive things, but merely the practical option of expressing them freely. No one has the right to be wrong in the truest sense of the term, but only the free will to be in the wrong. Until we understand that, we really won't understand the importance of a well regulated freedom at all.
Rights must be viewed in their proper perspective. They are not, not a one of them, open ended and subject to mere personal interpretation. We may treat some select few of them as absolute, but only due to abject necessity. Actions which beg the true nature of free speech do not promote but instead denigrate the right. They make us less than we can be, which is good and decent people.
There are folks who opine that free speech means the right to say offensive things. They forget that there are two ways in which someone is offended: either when the listener is a fool, or when the speech in question is genuinely offensive.
No one has a moral right to voice offensive remarks solely for the sake of making offense; that is simply rudeness at best and insulting and vulgar at worst. To say that they have such a right under the guise of free speech is really only to hide irresponsible behavior behind a pretty face. As rights only grow from responsibilities, it is reasonable to argue that the right to speak freely comes from the obligation to speak truthfully, in the reasonable interests of ourselves and the general society, and considerately, so far as circumstances may allow.
Still, the only way to really stifle morally offensive speech is censorship, and the problem with censorship is that it is only good when good people are in charge. When bad people hold the reigns, then good and necessary free speech will be prohibited. It is a risk we cannot take.
In the end, though, no one has the right to say offensive things, but merely the practical option of expressing them freely. No one has the right to be wrong in the truest sense of the term, but only the free will to be in the wrong. Until we understand that, we really won't understand the importance of a well regulated freedom at all.
Rights must be viewed in their proper perspective. They are not, not a one of them, open ended and subject to mere personal interpretation. We may treat some select few of them as absolute, but only due to abject necessity. Actions which beg the true nature of free speech do not promote but instead denigrate the right. They make us less than we can be, which is good and decent people.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Free Speech
The First Amendment, we are so regularly told, protects our freedom of speech. This is of course generally a good thing, and without doubt one of the reasons behind the strength of our Republic. Still, can it really mean the right to say anything we want to at any time we choose?
Before going any further I am not about to advocate any kind of abridgment of such an important constitutional right. I merely intend to briefly explore the more philosophical ramifications of speech. The question I want to address is: should we feel free to speak freely at all times and in all places?
It strikes me that decorum and consideration of our surroundings ought to play some role in our talk, and that such ideas deserve their day. Does anyone really want to insult friends when the situation simply does not require the full expression of our thoughts? Perhaps we become nothing more than busybodies when we comment on things which may not be any of our business.
Yet even in political discourse I believe that a line may be crossed. Portraying Barack Obama as Hitler is as unfair as portraying George W. Bush as Hitler, and ultimately nothing more than inflammatory. It cannot help forward political debate; consequently, is it truly wise to use such divisive imagery even if within one's rights to do so?
Yet it happens all the time on both sides of the aisle. It has indeed happened across the political spectrum since the dawn of our nation. That we have survived it so far cannot truly justify such talk, innuendo, and outright insult.
Just something that, I think, we need to consider as debate rages on in the political and personal arenas of our lives.
Before going any further I am not about to advocate any kind of abridgment of such an important constitutional right. I merely intend to briefly explore the more philosophical ramifications of speech. The question I want to address is: should we feel free to speak freely at all times and in all places?
It strikes me that decorum and consideration of our surroundings ought to play some role in our talk, and that such ideas deserve their day. Does anyone really want to insult friends when the situation simply does not require the full expression of our thoughts? Perhaps we become nothing more than busybodies when we comment on things which may not be any of our business.
Yet even in political discourse I believe that a line may be crossed. Portraying Barack Obama as Hitler is as unfair as portraying George W. Bush as Hitler, and ultimately nothing more than inflammatory. It cannot help forward political debate; consequently, is it truly wise to use such divisive imagery even if within one's rights to do so?
Yet it happens all the time on both sides of the aisle. It has indeed happened across the political spectrum since the dawn of our nation. That we have survived it so far cannot truly justify such talk, innuendo, and outright insult.
Just something that, I think, we need to consider as debate rages on in the political and personal arenas of our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
