This has been an interesting month in the life of our country. The political season has begun early and the fallout from the comments of radio show host Don Imus has been overshadowed by the massacre at Virginia Tech university and the discussion of what media broadcast in the aftermath was ethical. From my perspective these issues and the previously discussed political correctness in this blog come down to free speech. In the United States of America one of the areas of pride is free speech. I'd also ask the question; "is speech free"? Another way of expressing the question is; "does irresponsible speech threaten freedom of speech as much as a tyrannical government"?Having the freedom or right to express yourself is not the same from my perspective as expressing yourself because you have the right. The courts have ruled that pornography is an expression of speech, so protected, the same view for burning the American flag. There are also words that cause a violent reaction, many times due to race, gender or some other group that is offended. In the case of Don Imus it was race and gender when he called the women's basketball team from Rutgers "nappy headed ho's". He was promptly fired from his job. Did he and should he have the right to say it? YES, from a freedom of speech position. Did he or should he have enough respect for them to willingly not say it? Yes, he ultimately did after apologizing to them, but didn't have enough self-discipline to willingly not say it in the first place.
Many wars were fought to provide freedoms to all free people, so those freedoms have a cost. They are not free in the context that someone didn't pay a price for them. In the United States freedom of speech has grown over the centuries to mean far more than was written in the U.S. Constitution. The Bible doesn't present a compelling case for us to be able to say or do anything we feel like regardless of the effect on others. Instead it states we should love one another and even says "Speak and act as those who will be judged by the law of freedom" in James 2:12. Galations 5:13 says it this way; "For you are called to freedom, brothers; only don't use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but serve one another through love". 1st Corinthians 10: 23-24 states "Everything is permissible, but not everything is helpful. Everything is permissible but not everything builds up. No one should seek his own good, but the good of the other person".
When these Christian principles of freedom are applied to the freedom written about by the founders of our country, a different dynamic emerges. David Barton has spent his life uncovering documents that prove a substantial majority of those that signed the Declaration of Independence were sincere practicing Christians. The freedom they desired for their new country was the type of freedom described in the Bible. The free speech of the 32 killed at Virginia Tech was ended by Seung-Hui Cho in a rage of killing prompted by his mentally stressed view of the world. The videos, pictures and 1800 word statement became the media picture of the disaster when NBC decided to release it. Ironically his "free" speech came after his death and overshadowed the speech of his victims. The choice of whose view of the world should be communicated to an entranced audience was made by the staff at NBC.
A balance of responsibility with freedom is required in every instance. The January 2006 edition of this blog was named "It's OK to offend and be offended", so I'm obviously not suggesting some tolerance movement where feelings are never ruffled or subjects should not be discussed. I'm also NOT suggesting that things some people do not agree with should be considered irresponsible. The issue is similar to the concept that you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and deny culpability when people are trampled by the fearful mob. If the only purpose of your "free" speech is to hurt another, is it free? The price was paid by the one who was hurt. Responsibility for what one says should continue in legal, moral, and ethical form. So, perhaps the issue is "protected" speech.
Some subjects like politics, religion, and income are considered areas to avoid in social settings. There is a world of difference between stating that I favor a flat tax as a better vehicle to fund government and stating that if you oppose a flat tax your children should be murdered or sterilized to prevent such stupid opinions from continuing. Relational accountability should not restrict freedom of speech, it should protect it in the long-term by ensuring that political correctness doesn't end it as well as a tyrannical government. In many other countries of the world there is no freedom of speech. In almost every case it is due to government restrictions. Our Supreme Court rulings and executive orders must be watched as they have incrementally changed what freedoms we have.
Your future protected speech should be guarded in two ways. The first is to ensure elected and appointed politicians don't change the constitutional right. The second is to ensure that the media and society in general don't abuse responsible speech bringing about social ills or even worse, government restrictions. Speak and act as one that will be judged by the law of freedom. Educate all those that you know about this key principle as well. MY freedom and YOUR freedom counts on it.
