Freedom of Speech Runs Amok

Posted on by under Free Press Issues, History, Law and justice, Political commentary, Social commentary

“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.”

Tonight I have that “freedom of speech” part on my mind.  Actually, it’s on my mind a lot lately, for I think that we have taken it way too far, and the courts have largely supported those who would abuse that particular ‘right’.  What, exactly, is ‘speech’?

According to the Oxford Language Dictionary it is “the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds.” 

Merriam-Webster says it is “the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words; exchange of spoken words; the power of expressing or communicating thoughts by speaking.”

Nowhere in there do I see it defined as the right to participate in an insurrection, maiming, killing, and destroying property in an attempt to overturn an election.  Nor do any of the definitions I’ve seen define it as the right to make pornographic videos and post them on the internet.  And yet, some of those who participated in the January 6th, 2021, insurrection attempting to overthrow a fair and honest election, have claimed they were only exerting their rights to free speech.  Leaves me scratching my head …

And then yesterday I read that the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin, Joe Gow, has been fired from his position for … wait for it … he and his wife made and posted pornographic videos that “included sex scenes together and with others under the username Sexy Happy Couple.”  Okay, seems to me that the firing was appropriate, given his position, but he claims that he was only exercising his free speech rights!  How is having sex in a public venue where even children are exposed to it, defined as “speech” in any sane mind???

These are just two of the utterly ludicrous attempts by people to cram everything into the basket labelled “free speech” and I think it’s well past time that we redefine what the “right to freedom of speech” actually means.  It seems that the courts are walking on eggshells trying to keep from violating the free speech clause, but the result is that more and more people are stretching that ‘right’ far beyond what was ever intended.  No doubt the framers of the Constitution would be horrified to see some of the things that are justified as being “free speech”.

Heck, Donald Trump’s lawyers are even claiming that certain of the indictments against him are “an attack on free speech.”  I respect the Constitution, respect the Bill of Rights, but when one person’s ‘rights’ trample on the rights of others, it is quite simply wrong in my view.  And ‘speech’ is words, not pornography, not violence, just spoken or written words.  When those words incite violence or pose a threat to others, they must be stifled.  The courts need to step up to the plate on this one.

As I’ve long said, your ‘rights’ or mine end when they infringe on somebody else’s rights.  Each and every freedom or ‘right’ we have is accompanied by a corresponding responsibility to use it wisely and to do no harm.  Those who will not accept the responsibility, give up the right.  Full stop.

Discover more from Filosofa's Word

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

37 thoughts on “Freedom of Speech Runs Amok”

  1. When we elect unqualified leaders who say anything to stay in power, our representative democracy is definitely under siege. But you and I know in common that we would both be unlikely to get away with that philosophy to stay emotionally and economically grounded.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Your American version of “free speech” is invading Canada now. The leader of the federal Conservative Party is lieing through his teeth, and I wish someone would call him on it. Statements he has made are absurd, like Trudeau will increase inflation 300% if re-elected. I would like to see him prove that one!
    No, in my mind Americans have gone way too far. Free speech does not mean lieing, or telling stories that cannot be challenged. Certainly speech that causes violence cannot be allowed, or forgiven. Otherwise you might as well have no Constitution at all — for it becomes meaningless.
    As I said somewhere to someone the other day, your founding fathers never imagined a nation that world allow guns to proliferate, or words to be used as weapons of attack. And that assumption that people would always be reasonable and responsible is what is likely to cause the fall of America, even as surely as it created America in the first place. If humans survive the next hundred years without being bombed back to the Stone Age, or being turned into dead dinosaurs, America will become a case study in how not to build a nation. Rome lasted a thousand years — America will be lucky to last 300.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I have been seeing some negative, unsubstantiated things on social media about Trudeau … things that sounded just like some of the crap the Republicans here say about Biden. I fully agree that we have gone WAY too far in ‘free’ speech, and hope that you guys nip it in the bud before you become a hotbed for lies, violence, and corruption like we are.

      You’re right … I often wonder what the Founding Fathers would think if they could return to Earth for just one day and see what has become of the nation they founded. I don’t think that the human species will survive much past the end of this century, and these days I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. (I haven’t read the comments before mine, yet. I got torqued during Jill’s piece, though, so I’m writing this before doing that.)
    I remember under GW, when peaceful people, including many Christians, were relegated to “Free Speech Zones” so we could stand, hold our candles, some signs, wear our t-shirts, and ask the public to say no to invading countries who did nothing to the US. What that essentially did was put us, in fenced areas, where we were easily overlooked by those we wished/hoped to influence to do as we did in regard to contacting the legislators who could have stopped those invasions, and easily ignored by our electeds, who mostly couldn’t even see us. We did it anyway, but of course the coverage was of the self-named “Patriot Guard” who rode motorcycles around to scare people off and drown out speakers. But according to the Bush Admin, we got our free speech.

    I’d sure like to see Free Speech Zones for MAGA protestors so we don’t have to hear little kids ask what that person’s t-shirt says, because they don’t yet recognize the F word (the “F— Your Feelings” t-shirt.) OK, off my soapbox, thanks for the space.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I had forgotten about the “free speech zones”! What a grand idea … that way, they aren’t out there offending everyone else and causing riots! It would never fly today, though … people have come to LIKE the violence, the offensiveness, the hatred on display for all to see.

      Bring your soapbox along with you any time, my friend! You are always welcome here!

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I think a big part of the denigration of free speech goes to Texas v Johnson in 1989, when the court voted, 5-4 in favor of Gregory Lee Johnson, who had burned an American flag & argued that it was within his First Amendment right to free speech. After that, people think that all kinds of behavior, good, bad & ugly falls under the First Amendment right to free speech.

    The other problem is that Americans are taught about their unalienable rights but never about how to responsibly use those rights or how not to trample over the rights of other people; that their rights are important too & must be considered.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Y’know … I hadn’t made that connection, but I think you may well have a good point there! That opened the doors … or rather, the floodgates … for people to claim all sorts of things as “free speech” … including looting, maiming, stealing, and destroying public property! And you’re also right about the lack of teaching responsibility, or how to use your rights judiciously and responsibly. For some people, it comes naturally, but for others … well, it’s a “Me First” world. Sigh.

      Like

  5. Jill, the part of the First Amendment that far too many Americans disregard, especially now with radical MAGA Repubs, or ignore, or flat-out disobey are eight (8) simple words:

    …the right of the people peaceably to assemble…

    When Capital Police Officers die, or citizens die, or any of them are attacked violently and injured, sometimes fatally, THAT IS NOT “peaceably assembling!” Period! How else can any half-educated, reading adult mistake or misinterpret those eight words!?

    That’s a rhetorical question by the way. 🙄😡

    Liked by 2 people

    • You are so right about that, Prof! I watched the attacks on the Capitol in real time on January 6th and if that was “peaceable assembly” then I am the Queen of England!!! One part of the equation is what you just said … “half-educated”. We’ve stopped educating, by my definition of the word. Now, they only want to teach kids to program computers, not to think for themselves, not to understand how the world works, or how we got where we are … just learn to build televisions and computers and leave the deep thinking to the rich kids. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr …

      Liked by 2 people

      • Right again Jill. 🎯

        When I was preparing in 2009 to go into teaching Social Studies, History, and Earth Science (my specialties), Texas school districts were already cutting back or cutting out completely the Fine Arts subjects in many districts as well as greatly deemphasizing History and Social Studies, which includes state and federal government curriculums for middle and high school grades. It was quite infuriating that the state school board (and Texas Education Agency) were more concerned about producing H.S. grads that were ‘programmed’ to program technology, not a fully, well-rounded grad on MANY subjects and capable of higher-level thinking for positions of executive management, PhD’d historians in Colonial America, or public service in a government-funded position in legal matters, e.g. law school, or the next Nobel Prize winner in Climate Change & Restoration, to name a few needed occupations.

        Instead of producing those types of grads, Texas has gotten increasingly MORE interested in banning books and crippling further our public education system via “school vouchers.” 😡🤦‍♂️

        Liked by 2 people

        • I think the ‘dummying down’ of our education system is the single worst thing we could do for future generations. History, literature, social sciences, political science … those are all ESSENTIAL to an understanding of the world, to the ability to reason, to think, to make wise decisions! Is it any wonder we’re in the mess we’re in today??? We all have our niche in this world, but how can we find it if we are herded like sheep into narrow channels of learning, if we are not exposed to ALL viewpoints and ideologies? States like Texas, Florida, and many others simply want to produce automatons to make ever more wealth for the already-wealthy. Who will develop the cure for cancer, or find new sources of renewable energy, or a way to recycle plastic, or a means to find peaceful solutions for the problems that divide nations, just to name a few? 🤬

          Liked by 1 person

  6. Pingback: Freedom of Speech Runs Amok | Filosofa’s Word | Ned Hamson's Second Line View of the News

  7. Jill, quite simply, free speech does give populists like Donald Trump, Joe McCarthy, etc. the right to lie like they have been proven to have a propensity to do. Yet, it does not give them the right to defame people or use it to harm people by inciting violence. Not only is that criminal behavior, it is weak-minded as they are using others as wind-up toys.

    And, it does not give them the right to break the law. From the recorded phone call by Donald Trump to the election official in Georgia, he allegedly broke the law using the power of his office to game the system.

    Freedom of speech allows Trump to lie, but it also allows me to ignore his lies.

    Keith

    Liked by 3 people

    • Agreed on all counts, but the courts have upheld those ‘rights’ well beyond what most sensible people think they should have, and now we’re seeing the results in the calls for violence, as well as other things. Trump may be the worst offender of the times, but he is far from being the only one.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. There will be no fixing of the constitution .The problem is not there. It is not the fault of the constitution that SOME people think “free” and “without consequence” are the same thing. A man once insulted P in my presence.His speech caused his face to hurt a little. Americans love her freedoms and whining about the costs.😜

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you. I’m certain it was karma that caused that man’s face to hurt after he spoke. I’ve heard of that happening, and nobody here is violent.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. I suppose it depends on what is actually meant by “free speech”. Under US case law hasn’t speech been extended to include other forms of expression such as when students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa, organised a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. Likewise the courts have interpreted the burning of the US flag as a form of speech.

    The issue seems to be that the first amendment makes no attempt to define what speech is It seems that the US courts have taken a somewhat increasingly liberal interpretation over the decades, but of course there’s no guarantee that trend will continue. Interestingly, the amendment only seems to protect free speech from government restraint, but not from other forms of restraint, hence it would seem that the University of Wisconsin was within its rights to fire the Chancellor.

    Perhaps it might have been different if it had occurred in New Zealand? The NZBORA (New Zealand Bill OF Rights Act) says nothing about free speech, but it does guarantee freedom of expression and specifically states that “freedom of expression includes the right to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form”. If the recording or publishing of the videos didn’t occur while the Chancellor was at work, didn’t occur on university property or use university resources, then his firing could possibly be seen as restricting his freedom of expression. It would, I guess, depend largely on the nature of his employment contract, although the courts here have taken a dim view of employers attempting to impose restrictions on the private lives of their employees.

    Liked by 3 people

    • The courts have interpreted ‘free speech’ in many ways, but I think that Polly (silverapplequeen) may be right that it traces back to the case of flag-burning as the start. “Freedom of peaceful assembly” is also part of the 1st Amendment, but the keyword here should … MUST … be “peaceful”. There was nothing peaceful about January 6th!

      I fully agree that the University of Wisconsin was well within its rights. My jaw drops when I read that Mr. Gow thinks he has the right to be head of a University and meanwhile post lurid videos online, and yet keep his job! Where is the common sense???

      Question for you, since you mention New Zealand’s “freedom of expression” … if someone speaks (either verbally or via social media) something that incites others to do bodily or property harm, is that speech protected? From what you’ve told me of your laws there, they have always seemed much more sensible than ours, so I was curious as to how that would be handled there.

      Like

      • Hate or threatening speech against individuals is prohibited but not against groups, unless the group is based on race ethnicity, skin colour or nationality. So as ithe law currently stands, hate speech against other groups is not illegal.

        Following the Christchurch mosque shootings a review of the law was undertaken and prior to the change of government in November public consultation on proposed changes were stii ongoing. It seems that finding the right balance between freedom of expression and the protection of groups is proving very difficult to achieve.

        The intent of the labour government was to liberalise what can be expressed under human rights legislation and move restrictions into the crimes act where they can be more tightly defined.

        However one of the political parties making up the new coalition government is a right of centre libertarian group and are strongly opposed to any restrictions on freedom of expression – even current restrictions, so quite possibly there will be no changes at all. It was the only party that opposed gun reform after Christchurch, and doesn’t seem to value the rights of groups and minorities at all – individual freedoms are all that matters. It hold to values I strongly oppose and I fear a lot of socially progressive changes over recent decades will be wound back if it gets its way.

        Like

  10. Because, it’s, different with everyone’s individual, perception, what constitutes as, “offensive”, therefore, quite, difficult, to, interpret what’s allowed, in the areas of, “freedom of expression”, someone may use the F-word, and, a person would find that, offensive, but another, wouldn’t, so, the line of, what’s allowed and what isn’t, is, defined, loosely, and that, is how, people can, walk in the, grays, and, get away, with, the personal, atracks or the, libel and slander, because the law doesn’t have, “you use the F word, it’s illegal and, we will, arrest you!”. And, if, you say, something about someone that sounded, slanderous, you can, always, claim, that, “it’s how I feel”, and, the police can’t, arrest you on how you, feel, so, until someone, PHYSICALLY, attacks someone else, the law enforcement doesn’t do, SQUAT! And that would be, the, loophole in the, First Amendment.

    Liked by 3 people

    • One thing to note is that “who” you are makes a difference, too. For example, if I said some of the things that Trump has said, if I posted them here on my blog, the men in dark glasses would be at my door within the hour, but Trump has not spent so much as an hour in jail. I think that we will all lost a portion of that ‘right’ to free speech as a result of the abuses that have taken place.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. There are times when reading Nineteen Eighty Four the the notion comes into my head ‘Guys. You just over-thought the problem. That’s all. And you should retire O’Brien, or put him in charge of Re-cycling Staples. That fellah Winston Smith, give him a one-up promotion and a flat with a few trimmings, he’ll come around,’

    Liked by 3 people

  12. I agree totally. I have long said that the Right to FREE speech is abused when it i used to denigrate others and spread lies. The attacks on Hilary Clinton and those on President Obama’s birth/religion were designed to hurt but were never accompanied by proofs. To me, everything said under the banner of Free Speech should be able to be proven and anything slanderous disapproved for publication. Newspapers diseminating such ‘facts’ should be made to publish retractions where the accusations cannot be shown to be true.In fact, without appropriate proofs they should never be allowed to be printed. Anythhing that smacks of hate and promotes violence and/or intolerance should be punishable by fines and/or imprisonment.

    Liked by 4 people

    • I fully agree! Lies, unfortunately are considered ‘protected speech’, however when they cross the line and incite violence, then that’s where the line must be drawn! I think some toes need to be stepped on in order to bring a bit of sanity to the concept of freedom of speech, for people have taken advantage for far too long and today it is beyond ridiculous! Trump and any who cause people to be injured or killed should be in prison where they can do no further harm. Can you imagine … if I threatened Trump in an online chat or even here on my blog post? The men in dark glasses would be at my door within the hour! But Trump can cause Nancy Pelosi’s husband to be brutally attacked, can cause a riot that kills a number of police officers and injures hundreds, and … he claims it was “part of his job” and he should be immune from consequences? Sigh. Cwtch

      Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.