Going back over my more recent blog posts, I find that I’ve been writing a lot about freedom of speech and that’s because it is, and has been for at least three or four decades, under ever-increasing assault. And the war on free speech has become far more open and vociferous over the last ten years or so. Make no mistake, “war” is the proper term here. I am a free speech absolutist.
Freedom of speech is an absolute and inalienable right of American citizens and human beings vis-à-vis their governments. Inalienable means it exists within you simply because you are human. Freedom of speech means that even if someone insults you in the vilest way possible, the government DOES NOT have the right to sanction or arrest that individual for their speech. You can punch them in the throat, but you cannot expect the government to arrest or fine or otherwise silence them on your behalf. So-called “hate speech” IS PROTECTED SPEECH.
There are three very narrow categories of unprotected speech. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE ) Has a very thorough, clear, and concise discussion of these categories. I suggest you bookmark FIRE’s site so you can refer to it whenever the discussion turns to free speech.
- Incitement to imminent lawless action (incitement);
- speech that threatens serious bodily harm (true threats); or
- speech that causes an immediate breach of the peace
Is that clear? If the speech you don’t like does not fall into one of these very specific categories, your choice is to counter with more speech, open up said insulting speech to sunshine and let others decide, or walk away.
Freedom of speech means freedom for everyone to speak as they desire regardless of the state of your knicker-twisting and regardless of your like or dislike of the speaker. If you don’t like their speech, your protocol should be more speech to counter theirs, NOT calling the cops for some imagined crime. Freedom of speech means you, yes you, must tolerate (note, “tolerate” does NOT mean “like”) speech which makes you angry, uncomfortable, and/or hurts your feelings. Freedom of speech means people get to disagree with you and say their piece in the public square without fear of arrest or punishment by the government. Freedom of speech means people get to post whatever they like, wherever they like.
In the U.S., the Supreme Court has, over the years, created a penumbra, or shadow, radiating out from the First Amendment that covers and protects a number of forms of speech. Activities like burning the American flag are considered symbolic speech, and thus are protected activities. You may despise someone who elects to burn a flag, but the government cannot stop them. You are free to try to stop them, but then you risk venturing into assault territory if you touch or hit them, which has nothing to do with your right to speech, but rather your lack of rights to hit/assault someone. Burning the flag is protected speech.
If someone is writing opinion pieces, or stating opinions on video, you don’t like, guess what? You cannot stop them, nor can you get them in trouble. As a true advocate of freedom, your only choice is to – gasp – not read the piece!
Or, putting your emotions aside and exercising your critical thinking skills, you can – again, gasp – read or listen to the piece and figure out where you diverge from their ideas and where your own interpretations fit in. Wow! What a radical thought!
Freedom of speech means just that – freedom. And that means you are going to hear and read a LOT of things you disagree with. Oh, no! Anyway…
Suck it up, Buttercup. We ALL have the same rights.
The remedy for speech you disagree with, is more speech. Never a gag. It’s very simple, fundamental truth of our country, that, frankly, has been *intentionally* hidden by the public education mafia, to serve their own ends.
I may hate what some say, but they are within their rights to say it.
I’m sick to death of the talking morons on the boob tube calling everything they hate dis- or misinformation.
Well said
“Freedom of speech means that even if someone insults you in the vilest way possible, the government DOES NOT have the right to sanction or arrest that individual for their speech. You can punch them in the throat”
IF you punch them in the throat, then you have violated their right to freedom of speech – ie the act is a violation of their rights whether it is a private citizen punching them in the throat or a police officer punching them in the throat. So, NO, you “can” NOT “punch them in the throat” any more than a police officer can. NEITHER of you has that right. BOTH of you are violating that individual’s right of free speech.
No, you haven’t violated their freedom of speech, you’ve committed assault; you have not told them they cannot say what they said, you have assaulted them after the fact. A private citizen cannot violate another private citizen’s rights. You can assault them, injure them, or wrongfully imprison them. But only an organization (governmental or non-governmental) can violate a person’s rights. If you’re thinking about Voltaire’s “your right to swing your arm ends at my nose,” that’s not a violation of free speech, that’s a notice of limits of exercising. And the limits on exercising speech are very, very few as I noted in the piece. Reactions to speech are not a violation of free speech.
My favorite people also believe that exposing democrats to wrong thought is an assault and should carry a jail sentence or maybe a few years in the gulag. They also all firmly believe in policing speech so that ‘wrong’ thought or ideas don’t make it into the marketplace of ideas. My favorite bit though is how they simply fly apart at the seems if you suggest that giving gay and trans ‘books’ to little girls and boys so they know how to give blow jobs is inappropriate reading material for 3rd graders.
Oh, that sounds like a lot of fun! Not.