“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 6^th, 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.