Free Speech and Responsibilty

    The First Amendment states that free speech is a right.  I believe that in fact free speech is a privilege.  Per the First Amendment, the United States is a country where all individuals are supposed to have the opportunity to speak, and write, freely on any topic.  However, there are responsibilities that accompany the right to speak freely.  That is why in reality free speech is a privilege.

    As Americans we are free to speak openly on any subject, and that is truly a great freedom, a wondrous privilege in a world of oppression, tyranny, and subjugation.  The ability to voice an opinion is a required condition and function of a democratic society as put forth in the U.S. Constitution.  A responsibility that accompanies the privilege of free speech is the allowance of those with a differing viewpoint or belief to state that sentiment free of ridicule or penalty.  Does that mean that as an individual we must listen to, or read, a point of view which we find ridiculous or morally repulsive?  No, of course not.  As individuals we are free to disallow anything into our homes or minds that we do not want to expose ourselves or our families to.  We are free to close the book, walk out of the theatre, turn off the television, or leave the room.  Is it wise to ignore differing viewpoints?  At times it may be however, there are issues that require greater exposure and closer scrutiny, and as a society we need to question.

    It is the individual’s responsibility to sort through the morass of opinions and decide which hold value and which could be dangerous and perhaps need an opposing or dissenting viewpoint expressed.  Further responsibility accompanies this choice to voice a dissenting opinion, including education and comprehension of the original  opposing viewpoint.

    A third responsibility that should not need elucidation, but surprisingly does, is the treatment of the opposing viewpoint.  Personal belittlement and ridicule of the individual or group holding an opposing viewpoint is counterproductive.  It shows a lack of tolerance and at the very least poor manners.  If in an argument one must resort to personal attacks and comments regarding the character and intelligence of the adversary that indicates that the attacking individual has a, a weak argument, incomplete and not fully comprehended; and,b the person resorting to personal attack is of sub average intelligence in addition to being devoid of common courtesy.

    As a proponent of free speech I exercise the privilege with discretion and caution.  Possibly the greatest responsibility is in choosing the time, and location.  The appropriate forum and audience should always, under all circumstances, be considered.  Is it appropriate, or wise, to voice an opinion in favor of allowing access to pornography for minors at a PTA (Parent Teacher Association) meeting?  I would think it to be counterproductive, foolish, and possibly harmful to bring that topic for discussion to such an environment.  What if a teacher or an administrator were to propose the topic, how long would he remain in the classroom?  Not long I would think.  A teacher’s right to free speech is limited, if he desires to minimize turmoil and controversy in his life and retain his teaching position.  Many issues need be very carefully dealt with if not avoided entirely due to the consequences of the implementation of free speech in many communities.  The seemingly logical response to that is, “But, that’s censorship!  Surely a teacher can exercise his right to free speech?”  However, how many parents are willing to let their child be exposed on a daily basis to an individual that they feel is unfit, uses language they disagree with, or is of a different, possibly radical religion from their own?  Or an individual that believes, and proposes that children be allowed access to pornography?  Not too many I think.  Additionally, is the use of sarcasm, satire, and tongue-in-cheek wise if a large portion of the audience has not yet matured to a stage where they are capable of discerning sarcasm or satire from a genuine, serious argument?  Is it responsible?  No, it is in itself immature and foolish.

    An individual in the public spotlight has an even greater responsibility in exercising his privilege of free speech.  Be it a celebrity or politician, every utterance that passes his lips is open to public scrutiny.  Additionally there will be consequences for any political or social position he proposes.  It is true, “you can’t please everyone,” that is the reality of life.  Every action has a consequence.  It is always amazing to watch the surprise when someone states a controversial opinion and is then rejected by an organization or individual.  Almost the very next response is “Censorship, my free speech is being stifled!”  Is it not the group, society, or individual exercising in turn their right to freedom of speech?

    In a truly free society, free speech applies to everyone, even those who we would prefer to stifle.  Common sense, common courtesy, and the realization that there are appropriate audiences and times for controversial topics along with consequences for positions taken are part of the rightto free speech.  It is not a right to be taken lightly.