Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Kids demonstrate for free speech in Ukraine.
AP Photo/Sergei Chuzavkov)
Free speech may be the one right among those enumerated in the Bill of Rights equally cited by libertarians, conservatives, and progressives. However, as happens in Seattle, which can be a politically contentious, some seem to feel freedom of speech somehow equals freedom from consequences for that speech, and scream constitutional violation should anyone criticizes or condemn them for their free speech.
Of course governmental penalty, coercion, or violence of any sort should never be a consequence of free speech, but the legitimate consequences of free speech may very well be anything from mild rebuke, moderate indignation, to vehement disgust, and even being ostracized from certain company.
For example, if you publish an essay lauding what Hitler did to the Jewish people, it’s not likely you’d be very welcome at the neighborhood synagogue. But would it be right for the writer to see this reproach as a violation of his free speech rights?
There are actually those who view anyone speaking in opposition to their own sacred viewpoint, as violating their free speech rights, simply because they’re being criticized for it. It’s as if it’s a First Amendment violation, in and of itself, for someone to cause them to feel bad for expressing an opinion.
In one instance Seattle police responded to quell a minor disturbance on Broadway. The two young people who'd set up a political booth on the sidewalk to express their "free speech" were upset with a woman who'd stopped to criticize their display and pamphlets. The primary component of the altercation occurred when they refused to allow the woman to take one of their pamphlets, and attempted to snatch if from her hand because they felt she'd "violated their free speech rights" by condemning their opinion.
The obverse of the liberty coin may contain our rights, but on the reverse is engraved our responsibilities. What we have to understand is when we choose to behave within the cover of a certain Constitutional right we have to be aware of the responsibilities attending it.
Another example: We have the all-important Second Amendment right to bear arms. However, if a person chooses to bear their gun in an aggressive, negligent, or reckless, manner, they might forfeit that right, at least temporarily—and they should if they’ve disregarded the responsibility that goes with their right.
And so it is with freedom of speech. If we choose not to temper our speech, which is fine, then we must accept that others will react, sometimes even venomously, to what we say, and we should be prepared for this consequence. Decide if you feel the price is worth voicing the words before you speak.
Of course governmental penalty, coercion, or violence of any sort should never be a consequence of free speech, but the legitimate consequences of free speech may very well be anything from mild rebuke, moderate indignation, to vehement disgust, and even being ostracized from certain company.
For example, if you publish an essay lauding what Hitler did to the Jewish people, it’s not likely you’d be very welcome at the neighborhood synagogue. But would it be right for the writer to see this reproach as a violation of his free speech rights?
There are actually those who view anyone speaking in opposition to their own sacred viewpoint, as violating their free speech rights, simply because they’re being criticized for it. It’s as if it’s a First Amendment violation, in and of itself, for someone to cause them to feel bad for expressing an opinion.
In one instance Seattle police responded to quell a minor disturbance on Broadway. The two young people who'd set up a political booth on the sidewalk to express their "free speech" were upset with a woman who'd stopped to criticize their display and pamphlets. The primary component of the altercation occurred when they refused to allow the woman to take one of their pamphlets, and attempted to snatch if from her hand because they felt she'd "violated their free speech rights" by condemning their opinion.
The obverse of the liberty coin may contain our rights, but on the reverse is engraved our responsibilities. What we have to understand is when we choose to behave within the cover of a certain Constitutional right we have to be aware of the responsibilities attending it.
Another example: We have the all-important Second Amendment right to bear arms. However, if a person chooses to bear their gun in an aggressive, negligent, or reckless, manner, they might forfeit that right, at least temporarily—and they should if they’ve disregarded the responsibility that goes with their right.
And so it is with freedom of speech. If we choose not to temper our speech, which is fine, then we must accept that others will react, sometimes even venomously, to what we say, and we should be prepared for this consequence. Decide if you feel the price is worth voicing the words before you speak.
Posts
