OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

Like all else in this world and life, there is always another side to most things. Free speech must always be our right as our forefathers wished it for a free country, but they hadn't counted on the modern age of instant world communication available to everyone.

Today many confused, ignorant, paranoid or psychotic fools can talk their way into a seat in the Legislature and other important places. They can write or speak their hallucinations and impress everyone with their 'truth'...even that the world came directly to them from God. They can play into people's worst fears. They can tarnish the reputations of the righteous with their fantasies and lies.

In 2006, CRIMEDOG45 wrote an excellent essay on the subject. However, I, as a therapist, have always encouraged my patients to make a distinction between speech and action. Too often people take actions that are violent or destructive in other ways and define those as their right to free speech. It is time some scholars bring the free speech portion of our Constitution to our modern technological society. While it may be verbal, and technically speech, it should not be acceptable to plot the overthrow of our government or assassination of elected officials as part of the right to free speech. I believe it was originally intended for opinions and initially most town Commons had a covered grandstand of sorts to accommodate these speakers. When it didn't, people used soapboxes or anything to elevate them above the heads of the audiences that would gather, thus the expression standing on or speaking from a soapbox.

Laws, like most other things are never without overlap to other conditions. While there is 'free speech' we have made some curbs to public lewdness in speech as well as action. Laws governing what is permissible for children limit some of the programming on television. Another is the law prohibiting defamation of character. Suits are costly and many just don't bother to file them though it is likely that shock jocks, media journalists who take liberties to explain the thoughts, goals and emotions of people to whom they have never spoken and about whom they know little, fall in this category all too frequently. Some, like loose cannons, have shot off their mouths and rarely even lost their jobs over what they said...as Don Imus did in 2007 over a racial slur.

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC touches this subject recently when he discussed the worst person in the world that day. Watch this video.

Some would have those who speak out against religion as going beyond the right to free speech. However, it should remain uppermost that this country was founded by many who had fled England for their right to believe in that which might not have been universally shared with those who ruled religion there at the time. Atheists, for example, are as sincere in their beliefs as those who profess to follow the word of God or Jesus, though no living person really knows exactly what that might be. "Beliefs which are true and valid cannot be harmed by criticism, even by unfair and incorrect criticism. Beliefs which are not true or valid will only be revealed through criticism. What this means is that if we care about the truth, we should welcome criticism of even our most treasured beliefs: if they are true then this will strengthen us; if they are wrong, then we will know and be free to follow new beliefs. Attacks on free speech have most recently come primarily from Muslims. Some threaten violence if ideas, images, or words which they find offensive are given public expression. Others deplore both threats and actual violence, but they are perfectly willing to benefit from them and are no less eager to insist that criticisms of their religion are offensive and should not be permitted under the cover of "free speech." They don't seem to realize that the free speech which protects their critics protects them as well."

During the last Administration, our free speech on telephone and, it is said, email was violated and no longer free in the sense that records were kept on what people were saying what and to whom in some fashion which still has not been clarified to the public. Is there anyone who can clearly define what is acceptable to all in free speech. I rather doubt it. Laws may be interpreted by courts but they should not be so unclear that the common man has to figure out what the law covers.