A Bedrock Value: Free Speech
I started this essay almost two months ago, during the Don Imus flap. Posting it now may seem to make it out of date, but there will always be issues like this unless we restore our sense of genuine freedom of speech. The incidents that have destroyed people’s careers and lives have been numerous since the advent of political correctness, although judging people’s thoughts on the basis of careless words isn’t new. What makes it scarier is the evident hypocrisy of media and political elites, who condemn their adversaries but ignore their allies, people like Rosie O’Donnell. Equally disturbing is their desire to impose “fairness” to silence plainly political opposition, when it is their voices that dominate much of the traditional media. In reality, free speech cannot be adjudicated or balanced, simply because the founders already established the standard we follow.
The first amendment to the U. S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” State constitutions typically re-enforce the idea that citizens have the right to speak their minds without government interference. Their intent is to allow people to express themselves freely, regarding religious, social, and ultimately political issues, no matter how controversial.
Everyone wants to be able to express his or her own opinions, ideas, and objections to the opinions of others, including and especially those running the government. Ironically, almost as often, some would prefer to silence the objectionable views of others. Free speech ceases to be free speech when that happens. Intriguingly, this tension is an extension of a normal human wish to be heard despite a comparable reluctance to listen, even in important personal relationships.
Of course, there are limits. Simple courtesy ought to limit what people say to each other. Legally, inciting to riot, urging minors to delinquent behavior, libel and slander, or shouting fire when there is no fire are generally unacceptable, but then they are not really political expressions either. Nevertheless, in the name of free speech, even these may be allowed. Strangely, so may burning the American flag, although I see that as walking awfully close to treasonous expression. Many in our country seem to have difficulty distinguishing a disagreement with a position taken by those in power and opposing the nation itself, which is treason.
Most cultures have unwritten rules of politeness and civility that moderate the manner in which people speak or act. People may violate these rules to gain attention, to amuse people, or to make a point. Those who hear may accept their incivility because they happen to agree, or they may object when they disagree. In a free country, that should be the extent of it. To make matters worse, these unwritten rules slowly change so that what once may have been offensive is now acceptable or what offends older listeners is fine with those who are younger. Strangely, we are seeing changes in the other direction, too, as some now find offense in things that were once more acceptable. Artists and entertainers tend to operate on the “cutting edge” of these changes.
In this present era, people may burn a flag, but a “shock jock” may not use politically incorrect words, even if others speak those words frequently without objection. Don Imus was certainly rude and rather stupid to say what he did about the Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team, recently, even if many blacks commonly use those same words. In this country, however, he is supposed to have the freedom to say them, just as rap singers have; I think rappers do far more harm. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would do considerably more good for their constituencies by criticizing the crude speech coming from within, instead of condemning what others say.
I don’t know if Imus is a racist, and frankly I don’t care. Racists won’t disappear just because someone attacks them or forces their employers to fire them, as has happened with a number of coaches and even a Senator. Furthermore, punishing this kind of offender doesn’t make life better for those whom he has offended; it merely escalates the engagement. Someone like Imus may go away, but the net effect may be to turn more people toward a racist viewpoint. In a country where black athletes dominate many sports and earn multi-million dollar salaries, paid for by millions of adoring fans, racism is basically dead. At a time when white youth are as likely to listen to black hip hop and rap, making street poets into millionaires, racism is fading as a serious problem. A few small-minded, fearful, or ignorant people exist among every racial group and always will, but they are thoughtless and insignificant people that decent people pretty much ignore. Of course, racism is the lifeblood of some kinds of leaders, who use hate to rally their followers, as often NAACP as Ku Klux Klan.
Did people listen to Don Imus? Do people listen to crude, R-rated rappers? Do people listen to far-Left bloggers who call the President Hitler? Do people listen to foul-mouthed comedians (Are there any other kind, any more?)? The answer is yes; someone will listen to any kook or radical. Trying to silence those voices you don’t like is counter-productive; it only encourages their fans to be a little angrier and makes the voices a bit more persuasive.
Somehow, the idea that aggressive antagonism is the best way to change things has come to dominate our culture, a notion that often spoken by the same voices as anti-war rhetoric. If power in bombs and weapons isn’t the answer when nations disagree, why does anyone think that power in words and laws is the answer when groups or communities disagree? In Don Imus’ case, more good was probably accomplished when the basketball team and Al Sharpton sat down with him and reasoned with him personally. Few people can maintain a hurtful attitude when they face with the real people they hurt. Forcing him out of work merely hurt him and may have countered any good that interpersonal communication may have done.
The heart of racist attitudes is ignorant generalization. Multiculturalism is often just as guilty of pigeonholing people as the racism they think to correct. Each person is an individual, far more than the categories in which people may try to put him or her. All white people are not descendents of slaveholders. Not every black person came from slaves. My opinions about blacks did not come from my heritage but from my experience, particularly with one teacher in high school. By then, I knew enough not to generalize, but it would have been easy to do so.
To an extent, I am more fearful, today, of those who spout hateful slogans and rhetoric at what they believe I represent: white descendents of slave-holders, males who keep women from enjoying full equality, heterosexuals who oppose legitimizing homosexuality, and Christians, to name a few. I am basically a nice guy, I am careful how I speak, and most of those with whom I disagree probably wouldn’t be able to tell if they met me. I generally prefer to allow all humans the right to exist, make their way in life, and live next door, if they want. When I disagree, I try to express myself kindly and reasonably. I would rather change a person’s mind with persuasion than beat them up with angry rhetoric.
My model is Paul, who said, “I become all things to everyone so that by some means I might win some.” I am not a phony or a hypocrite; I am not angry or aggressive. I do speak my opinion when I think others might listen, but I speak to persuade, not belittle or humiliate. I will refuse to listen, even to those with whom I agree, when they become too angry or adversarial, rude, crude, or prone to attack people personally. One of many reasons I prefer conservatives is they are more likely to attack ideas than people; attacking people and name-calling instead of discussing and debating ideas is a tactic of the Left. It is also an emotional reaction that arises from threat or fear; I regret the times when I have lost my cook and said things like that. It is damaging in our personal and professional lives, and it is counter-productive in general.
However, I can handle verbal meanness, anger, and even hate, if I must. I cannot accept any movement that seeks to silence freedom of expression, whether it is through public pressure, litigation, political action, or governmental regulation. CBS and MSNBC didn’t fire Imus because they objected to what he did; he had been doing that sort of thing throughout his career and was popular for it. In the workplace, employers should have a procedure for addressing, attempting to correct, and then, if necessary, terminating a non-compliant employee. They shouldn’t have fired Imus for a first offense without ever having attempted corrective measures; public pressure should not have circumvented such a process, one that laws generally require in many situations. I wouldn’t have been surprised to see Imus file a wrongful dismissal suit, but I haven’t heard what he has done or is doing now.
Renewed efforts to re-instate a so-called “fairness doctrine” are equally troubling. Those who are anti-traditional, left-leaning, secular, and progressive already dominate the Mainstream Media, Academia, Public Education, the Democratic Party, and Public Radio and Television. They are not in the majority, but they want to be and think they should be. If it weren’t for Rush Limbaugh, talk radio, and the Internet, we would rarely hear conservative ideas covered fairly, if they were covered at all. Common sense says you don’t put foxes in charge of the chicken coop, which suggests that those who despise conservative ideology dare not be the ones to determine fairness or guard free expression. Furthermore, such protection isn’t needed since an abundance of sources now exist for people to read, hear, and see. As with Imus, the goal isn’t to give both sides a fair hearing; it is to assure that “their side” is the only side. To follow the analogy, we don’t need a chicken coop at all; just let the chickens take care of themselves!
Free speech will never be politically correct, and political correctness will never be free. Who could have imagined that, as technology produced more ways for people to communicate, some would try even harder to silence their use? That situation exposes a fundamental flaw in secular progressive, anti-traditional, socialist elitism: it is dark, dreary, and stifling; it isn’t the least bit entertaining, and it doesn’t sell! It possesses little real humor that isn’t vulgar, and it is pessimistic, defeatist, and angry. Frankly, except for the illusion of hedonistic sexual pleasure, it just isn’t much fun (Actually, I rather like a certain degree of sexual humor. Sometimes, I suspect that sex itself is God’s joke, made for creatures prone to be entirely too serious!).
The aging counter-culture, anti-authority hippies, who tried so hard to shake the restraints of their traditional families, have morphed into the worst sort of nagging, whining, domineering pseudo-parents. Imagine how they would have reacted to any other folks trying to assume a parental role over them; they would have freaked! Yet, here they are, just like some intrusive mother or meddlesome father telling the rest of us what not to say, how we should treat other people, what to do with our money (or worse, expecting us to let them handle it for us), and even what to think and what not to think: “Watch you mouth, young man!” You can’t say that in our country.” “These are the people who should be your friends, not those terrible conservatives or those mean, sexually repressed Christians!”
I think it is time for a ground swell of public opinion saying, “Back off! You’re not our parents. We can think for ourselves, thank you very much! We will handle our own money, make our own choices, live our own lives, and do what we think is best. We don’t need your abusive, intrusive, hyper-controlling management of our lives. The price of your “parental” generosity is too high. We learned, a long time ago, that nearly every gift, every appearance of generosity, and every offer of help usually comes with a price, an obligation, and the feeling “Now, you owe us.” We don’t want that from those who truly love us, and we surely don’t want it from politicians, talking heads, bureaucrats, and other meddlers, who don’t really care for us at all!”
The Don Imus flap is already old news, but there will be others who stray from the path that the new monitors of proper speech have laid out. University campuses have largely ceased to be places of free expression or intellectual freedom. Today, students heckle, harass, and even shout down speakers with whom they disagree, and the faculty and administration do little and may even encourage them. The current generation of public school administrators and teachers learned their craft on those campuses and now seek to indoctrinate their students, at an earlier age when they are even more vulnerable.
I am encouraged to see what happened with immigration. The people made their voices clear, and the politicians could not ignore them. I suspect the same will happen with any serious attempt to re-institute a “fairness” policy unless we unwisely elect to many of that camp. The next election will be significantly important for this, as well as for the future leanings of the Supreme Court, the progress of War on Terror, and the progress of further socialism in America. Free speech is a necessary tool to assure all of our freedoms, and we must work hard to protect it.
The first amendment to the U. S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” State constitutions typically re-enforce the idea that citizens have the right to speak their minds without government interference. Their intent is to allow people to express themselves freely, regarding religious, social, and ultimately political issues, no matter how controversial.
Everyone wants to be able to express his or her own opinions, ideas, and objections to the opinions of others, including and especially those running the government. Ironically, almost as often, some would prefer to silence the objectionable views of others. Free speech ceases to be free speech when that happens. Intriguingly, this tension is an extension of a normal human wish to be heard despite a comparable reluctance to listen, even in important personal relationships.
Of course, there are limits. Simple courtesy ought to limit what people say to each other. Legally, inciting to riot, urging minors to delinquent behavior, libel and slander, or shouting fire when there is no fire are generally unacceptable, but then they are not really political expressions either. Nevertheless, in the name of free speech, even these may be allowed. Strangely, so may burning the American flag, although I see that as walking awfully close to treasonous expression. Many in our country seem to have difficulty distinguishing a disagreement with a position taken by those in power and opposing the nation itself, which is treason.
Most cultures have unwritten rules of politeness and civility that moderate the manner in which people speak or act. People may violate these rules to gain attention, to amuse people, or to make a point. Those who hear may accept their incivility because they happen to agree, or they may object when they disagree. In a free country, that should be the extent of it. To make matters worse, these unwritten rules slowly change so that what once may have been offensive is now acceptable or what offends older listeners is fine with those who are younger. Strangely, we are seeing changes in the other direction, too, as some now find offense in things that were once more acceptable. Artists and entertainers tend to operate on the “cutting edge” of these changes.
In this present era, people may burn a flag, but a “shock jock” may not use politically incorrect words, even if others speak those words frequently without objection. Don Imus was certainly rude and rather stupid to say what he did about the Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team, recently, even if many blacks commonly use those same words. In this country, however, he is supposed to have the freedom to say them, just as rap singers have; I think rappers do far more harm. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would do considerably more good for their constituencies by criticizing the crude speech coming from within, instead of condemning what others say.
I don’t know if Imus is a racist, and frankly I don’t care. Racists won’t disappear just because someone attacks them or forces their employers to fire them, as has happened with a number of coaches and even a Senator. Furthermore, punishing this kind of offender doesn’t make life better for those whom he has offended; it merely escalates the engagement. Someone like Imus may go away, but the net effect may be to turn more people toward a racist viewpoint. In a country where black athletes dominate many sports and earn multi-million dollar salaries, paid for by millions of adoring fans, racism is basically dead. At a time when white youth are as likely to listen to black hip hop and rap, making street poets into millionaires, racism is fading as a serious problem. A few small-minded, fearful, or ignorant people exist among every racial group and always will, but they are thoughtless and insignificant people that decent people pretty much ignore. Of course, racism is the lifeblood of some kinds of leaders, who use hate to rally their followers, as often NAACP as Ku Klux Klan.
Did people listen to Don Imus? Do people listen to crude, R-rated rappers? Do people listen to far-Left bloggers who call the President Hitler? Do people listen to foul-mouthed comedians (Are there any other kind, any more?)? The answer is yes; someone will listen to any kook or radical. Trying to silence those voices you don’t like is counter-productive; it only encourages their fans to be a little angrier and makes the voices a bit more persuasive.
Somehow, the idea that aggressive antagonism is the best way to change things has come to dominate our culture, a notion that often spoken by the same voices as anti-war rhetoric. If power in bombs and weapons isn’t the answer when nations disagree, why does anyone think that power in words and laws is the answer when groups or communities disagree? In Don Imus’ case, more good was probably accomplished when the basketball team and Al Sharpton sat down with him and reasoned with him personally. Few people can maintain a hurtful attitude when they face with the real people they hurt. Forcing him out of work merely hurt him and may have countered any good that interpersonal communication may have done.
The heart of racist attitudes is ignorant generalization. Multiculturalism is often just as guilty of pigeonholing people as the racism they think to correct. Each person is an individual, far more than the categories in which people may try to put him or her. All white people are not descendents of slaveholders. Not every black person came from slaves. My opinions about blacks did not come from my heritage but from my experience, particularly with one teacher in high school. By then, I knew enough not to generalize, but it would have been easy to do so.
To an extent, I am more fearful, today, of those who spout hateful slogans and rhetoric at what they believe I represent: white descendents of slave-holders, males who keep women from enjoying full equality, heterosexuals who oppose legitimizing homosexuality, and Christians, to name a few. I am basically a nice guy, I am careful how I speak, and most of those with whom I disagree probably wouldn’t be able to tell if they met me. I generally prefer to allow all humans the right to exist, make their way in life, and live next door, if they want. When I disagree, I try to express myself kindly and reasonably. I would rather change a person’s mind with persuasion than beat them up with angry rhetoric.
My model is Paul, who said, “I become all things to everyone so that by some means I might win some.” I am not a phony or a hypocrite; I am not angry or aggressive. I do speak my opinion when I think others might listen, but I speak to persuade, not belittle or humiliate. I will refuse to listen, even to those with whom I agree, when they become too angry or adversarial, rude, crude, or prone to attack people personally. One of many reasons I prefer conservatives is they are more likely to attack ideas than people; attacking people and name-calling instead of discussing and debating ideas is a tactic of the Left. It is also an emotional reaction that arises from threat or fear; I regret the times when I have lost my cook and said things like that. It is damaging in our personal and professional lives, and it is counter-productive in general.
However, I can handle verbal meanness, anger, and even hate, if I must. I cannot accept any movement that seeks to silence freedom of expression, whether it is through public pressure, litigation, political action, or governmental regulation. CBS and MSNBC didn’t fire Imus because they objected to what he did; he had been doing that sort of thing throughout his career and was popular for it. In the workplace, employers should have a procedure for addressing, attempting to correct, and then, if necessary, terminating a non-compliant employee. They shouldn’t have fired Imus for a first offense without ever having attempted corrective measures; public pressure should not have circumvented such a process, one that laws generally require in many situations. I wouldn’t have been surprised to see Imus file a wrongful dismissal suit, but I haven’t heard what he has done or is doing now.
Renewed efforts to re-instate a so-called “fairness doctrine” are equally troubling. Those who are anti-traditional, left-leaning, secular, and progressive already dominate the Mainstream Media, Academia, Public Education, the Democratic Party, and Public Radio and Television. They are not in the majority, but they want to be and think they should be. If it weren’t for Rush Limbaugh, talk radio, and the Internet, we would rarely hear conservative ideas covered fairly, if they were covered at all. Common sense says you don’t put foxes in charge of the chicken coop, which suggests that those who despise conservative ideology dare not be the ones to determine fairness or guard free expression. Furthermore, such protection isn’t needed since an abundance of sources now exist for people to read, hear, and see. As with Imus, the goal isn’t to give both sides a fair hearing; it is to assure that “their side” is the only side. To follow the analogy, we don’t need a chicken coop at all; just let the chickens take care of themselves!
Free speech will never be politically correct, and political correctness will never be free. Who could have imagined that, as technology produced more ways for people to communicate, some would try even harder to silence their use? That situation exposes a fundamental flaw in secular progressive, anti-traditional, socialist elitism: it is dark, dreary, and stifling; it isn’t the least bit entertaining, and it doesn’t sell! It possesses little real humor that isn’t vulgar, and it is pessimistic, defeatist, and angry. Frankly, except for the illusion of hedonistic sexual pleasure, it just isn’t much fun (Actually, I rather like a certain degree of sexual humor. Sometimes, I suspect that sex itself is God’s joke, made for creatures prone to be entirely too serious!).
The aging counter-culture, anti-authority hippies, who tried so hard to shake the restraints of their traditional families, have morphed into the worst sort of nagging, whining, domineering pseudo-parents. Imagine how they would have reacted to any other folks trying to assume a parental role over them; they would have freaked! Yet, here they are, just like some intrusive mother or meddlesome father telling the rest of us what not to say, how we should treat other people, what to do with our money (or worse, expecting us to let them handle it for us), and even what to think and what not to think: “Watch you mouth, young man!” You can’t say that in our country.” “These are the people who should be your friends, not those terrible conservatives or those mean, sexually repressed Christians!”
I think it is time for a ground swell of public opinion saying, “Back off! You’re not our parents. We can think for ourselves, thank you very much! We will handle our own money, make our own choices, live our own lives, and do what we think is best. We don’t need your abusive, intrusive, hyper-controlling management of our lives. The price of your “parental” generosity is too high. We learned, a long time ago, that nearly every gift, every appearance of generosity, and every offer of help usually comes with a price, an obligation, and the feeling “Now, you owe us.” We don’t want that from those who truly love us, and we surely don’t want it from politicians, talking heads, bureaucrats, and other meddlers, who don’t really care for us at all!”
The Don Imus flap is already old news, but there will be others who stray from the path that the new monitors of proper speech have laid out. University campuses have largely ceased to be places of free expression or intellectual freedom. Today, students heckle, harass, and even shout down speakers with whom they disagree, and the faculty and administration do little and may even encourage them. The current generation of public school administrators and teachers learned their craft on those campuses and now seek to indoctrinate their students, at an earlier age when they are even more vulnerable.
I am encouraged to see what happened with immigration. The people made their voices clear, and the politicians could not ignore them. I suspect the same will happen with any serious attempt to re-institute a “fairness” policy unless we unwisely elect to many of that camp. The next election will be significantly important for this, as well as for the future leanings of the Supreme Court, the progress of War on Terror, and the progress of further socialism in America. Free speech is a necessary tool to assure all of our freedoms, and we must work hard to protect it.
Comments