Free Speech is Responsible Speech

In the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States we read, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” This straightforward text mark America's recognition of one of the lynchpins of a free and (presumably) democratic society.  However, because the concept embodied in these words is not understood properly, they are susceptible to abuse by individuals and groups seeking to manipulate the tenets of the Constitution to their own ends.

Young people abuse this text often when behaving disrespectfully, entitled or inappropriate, defending themselves with their basic misunderstanding of U.S. history by saying, “I have free speech, I can say what I want.” This becomes a habit when unchecked, and the habit has come to be confused with a prerogative free of consequence. From whence does this bad habit receive its ongoing impetus? From the people, presumed to be adults, charged with the responsibility of raising their children properly.  Thus, what should simply be a colloquial bad habit becomes an epidemic abuse and misunderstanding of what was intended to be a safeguard against the tyranny of absolute power.

Most people think that their free speech is absolute. However, every right is balanced by an equivalent responsibility.   The right to question those in power stops at sedition. The right to express religious or political points of view becomes detrimental when a religious believer or political proponent begins suggesting that those at variance with their tenets should be eliminated.  The right to say what you want in public does not give anyone the right to intentionally create panic through a false alarm.  Free speech must be responsible speech or else it no longer embodies liberty but chaos and anarchy.

The irony at work here is that, over the last 30 years, free speech has been used to silence critics and to oppress more than any change or overt government abuse to the amendment could. The heart of the irony is that most of the groups advocating free speech are doing the most to repress it.  One identifies the opponents of the party's ideology, invokes the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, and uses that guarantee to advocate the silencing of the opposition.

Perhaps the time is drawing close when we must drop our democratic pretentions. We do not advocate free speech for anyone but ourselves.  The absurdity of the position should not escape us, but it does.

In a society where you can say anything you want, however, why is there no admonition to be prepared for the consequences? There was a time when it was accepted that you could walk up to a man and call him a simpering coward to his face.  That was also a time when it was accepted that you would be punched in the face for saying that.  If you want freedom, you have to accept its consequences. Every liberty is balanced, in reality, by an equivalent responsibility and if you do not accept that responsibility, your activity can hardly be said to be protected by rights.

If the rule of Law protects human liberty, then it does so by enforcing the concept of human responsibility. To take this further, we can only be truly free to the extent to which we are responsible.  There is no way around this.  If you would be free, then you must embrace the Law's prerogatives and society's prerogatives as ardently as you advocate for your own.  Otherwise, you are unworthy to be free.