Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech is one of the central tenets not only of our democracy, but of just governance in general. But it is limited. Is that right, and what are those limits?
The U.S Supreme Court, as a matter of the law and Constitution, affirms that there are "reasonable" limits that may be placed on the freedom of speech. The often cited example is that you don't have the freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. This is based primarily on the premise that public safety and security is an overriding concern relative to some instances of momentary utterance.
In general the limits of the freedom of speech come in two shades; the legal and the moral/ethical.
The legal is as I've explained above. Speech that is itself directly or indirectly dangerous to the safety and security of individuals is not protected by the law. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is one example. Furthermore hate speech, or speech that incites violence, are also not protected as a matter of law.
However, society places certain morals and ethical bounds on speech as well. One cannot find themselves in legal trouble for it, but exclusion from society can be a form of punishment.
Several years ago there were anti-war groups who protested at the funerals of soldiers. There are some religious groups and churches who protest various events of same-sex couples or supporters. There are minimal legal limits on such actions, but in general there is a public distaste for such actions. This is born from our view of certain events as deserved of exception from whatever off-topic or ill-suited statements one could possibly make.
You don't speak ill of the dead, is one form of this concept. Even if a person was not a good person in life, the idea is that you don't speak ill of them at their funeral or in front of their loved ones. It is a social taboo and you are deemed ill-mannered and uncouth.
In essence, lying too is an exercise in freedom of speech. But legally you can be held accountable for lying to people who hold certain positions (cops, federal agents, etc.). Lying to another person, however, is not itself illegal. But it is highly frowned upon in society, viewed as a vice, even if it is something that people will do quite often. Depending on the situation some speech is limited, while it might not be in others. For instance, you don't just walk up to a woman on the street and call her "hot"; again not illegal (usually) but socially not accepted either.
In the context in which I recently had this discussion, public officials - public administrators, politicians, and those in similar positions - have the most limited freedom of speech of all citizens. This is because their words carry more weight. A regular citizen travelling abroad happens to be talking in earshot of a foreign head-of-state and insults him. It's not treated as anything - the individual's freedom of speech is recognized and not overtly questioned. Change this scenario from some random tourist to an agent of the federal government and you may have stirred the pot and ruffled some feathers. What was an uneventful and easily forgotten utterance by a random individual could now be seen as a meaningful roadblock - whether rightly so or not - to diplomatic relations with another nation.
I bring up this topic of freedom of speech not to speak at length about this Constitutional right specifically, but because I believe that in general there are a number of rights and allowances that we tend to take for granted as absolutes. Freedom of speech is often heralded as our most important right, and rightly so for what power it affords us all. But it is not an absolute. Why then should other afforded rights not too be limited.
A young man goes on a rampage at a high school. At first this sounds like another of the far too common tragedies that have unfolded in the last decade all across the US. Until you hear that the young man was running about with a knife. In the end he stabbed more than 20 people. While the tragic nature of this event is in no way to be trivialized, I can't help but think, "at least he didn't have a gun". 20 people were stabbed. So far it seems no one will die. As we've already seen from past experience, if he had a gun there would likely be crying over lost loved ones, not tears at their bedsides as they recover.
A company holds its own set of religious ideals. It determines that it doesn't want to comply with the Affordable Care Act because it feels that the provision that includes payment for contraceptives to violate their religious beliefs. But the company does not speak for all of its employees. Why should an employer have a say over this under the guise of their "religious freedom"? What of the employee's freedom?
Our rights are what they are because of a willingness to stand by them and fight for them. We do not live in a world of absolutes. We can strive to safeguard certain freedoms while placing applicable limits on those freedoms so as to benefit the whole. It is a balance of ideals and realities. My purpose in bringing up this discussion is to remind that this is what is necessary. One cannot wholly devote to the perfect ideal of one freedom without severely diminishing the others. They must all he held in measure against one another. That is the meaning of a just society.
The U.S Supreme Court, as a matter of the law and Constitution, affirms that there are "reasonable" limits that may be placed on the freedom of speech. The often cited example is that you don't have the freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. This is based primarily on the premise that public safety and security is an overriding concern relative to some instances of momentary utterance.
In general the limits of the freedom of speech come in two shades; the legal and the moral/ethical.
The legal is as I've explained above. Speech that is itself directly or indirectly dangerous to the safety and security of individuals is not protected by the law. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is one example. Furthermore hate speech, or speech that incites violence, are also not protected as a matter of law.
However, society places certain morals and ethical bounds on speech as well. One cannot find themselves in legal trouble for it, but exclusion from society can be a form of punishment.
Several years ago there were anti-war groups who protested at the funerals of soldiers. There are some religious groups and churches who protest various events of same-sex couples or supporters. There are minimal legal limits on such actions, but in general there is a public distaste for such actions. This is born from our view of certain events as deserved of exception from whatever off-topic or ill-suited statements one could possibly make.
You don't speak ill of the dead, is one form of this concept. Even if a person was not a good person in life, the idea is that you don't speak ill of them at their funeral or in front of their loved ones. It is a social taboo and you are deemed ill-mannered and uncouth.
In essence, lying too is an exercise in freedom of speech. But legally you can be held accountable for lying to people who hold certain positions (cops, federal agents, etc.). Lying to another person, however, is not itself illegal. But it is highly frowned upon in society, viewed as a vice, even if it is something that people will do quite often. Depending on the situation some speech is limited, while it might not be in others. For instance, you don't just walk up to a woman on the street and call her "hot"; again not illegal (usually) but socially not accepted either.
In the context in which I recently had this discussion, public officials - public administrators, politicians, and those in similar positions - have the most limited freedom of speech of all citizens. This is because their words carry more weight. A regular citizen travelling abroad happens to be talking in earshot of a foreign head-of-state and insults him. It's not treated as anything - the individual's freedom of speech is recognized and not overtly questioned. Change this scenario from some random tourist to an agent of the federal government and you may have stirred the pot and ruffled some feathers. What was an uneventful and easily forgotten utterance by a random individual could now be seen as a meaningful roadblock - whether rightly so or not - to diplomatic relations with another nation.
I bring up this topic of freedom of speech not to speak at length about this Constitutional right specifically, but because I believe that in general there are a number of rights and allowances that we tend to take for granted as absolutes. Freedom of speech is often heralded as our most important right, and rightly so for what power it affords us all. But it is not an absolute. Why then should other afforded rights not too be limited.
A young man goes on a rampage at a high school. At first this sounds like another of the far too common tragedies that have unfolded in the last decade all across the US. Until you hear that the young man was running about with a knife. In the end he stabbed more than 20 people. While the tragic nature of this event is in no way to be trivialized, I can't help but think, "at least he didn't have a gun". 20 people were stabbed. So far it seems no one will die. As we've already seen from past experience, if he had a gun there would likely be crying over lost loved ones, not tears at their bedsides as they recover.
A company holds its own set of religious ideals. It determines that it doesn't want to comply with the Affordable Care Act because it feels that the provision that includes payment for contraceptives to violate their religious beliefs. But the company does not speak for all of its employees. Why should an employer have a say over this under the guise of their "religious freedom"? What of the employee's freedom?
Our rights are what they are because of a willingness to stand by them and fight for them. We do not live in a world of absolutes. We can strive to safeguard certain freedoms while placing applicable limits on those freedoms so as to benefit the whole. It is a balance of ideals and realities. My purpose in bringing up this discussion is to remind that this is what is necessary. One cannot wholly devote to the perfect ideal of one freedom without severely diminishing the others. They must all he held in measure against one another. That is the meaning of a just society.
Comments
Post a Comment