Free Speech Rights
The First Amendment to our US Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” These First Amendment’s prohibitions apply equally to the federal government and to all state governments. What does this mean? It means that speech of US citizens cannot be restricted by any state or federal government organization.
Lately, well-intentioned people throughout the US have become the loudest voices arguing for restrictions on what they consider to be offensive speech. Why? Because it offends. Colleges and universities throughout the US are banning speakers and comedians who have points of view that offend. Laws are popping up in the US attempting to restrict offensive speech. And, while it is not the government, our cancel culture has become so powerful that US citizens fear saying anything at all… because almost everything offends someone.
Absolutely not! Offensive speech is necessary to shake up the status quo, to push us out of our comfort zones, and to provoke us to think about and debate about points of view in a way we might never have considered. Yes, our free speech rights have resulted in sometimes shocking, offensive, and seemingly outrageous words. But, as offensive as those words have been to people, those words have led to critically important changes like the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, the ratification of the 19th Amendment in1920 enabling women to vote, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and almost every other important social advancement in US history. Thankfully, the words that led to those changes were not banned.
No. It is self-evident that none of us can see the future, so none of us can possibly know which offensive words will drive necessary changes to make our nation better and which will not. We must appreciate that even our most deeply held beliefs are not necessarily facts, not necessarily correct, and that these deeply held beliefs are the hardest to reconsider. In fact, deeply held beliefs are so hard to reconsider that being challenged and offended is often necessary to persuade us to open our eyes and to analyze other possibilities. Then, after reconsideration, our initial deeply held beliefs are either reinforced or changed. Both are good outcomes. Simply, when it comes to speech, no topics should be sacred or taboo, and restrictions on free speech should be limited to the most extreme situations like falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater or inciting a riot. Avoiding the slippery slope of restrictions on speech should be paramount.
Yes. Historically, in democracies, newspapers and news stations have been the most vital sources of information. We use news to inform us as to what’s happening in the world beyond our own eyes and ears. We depend upon news to be unbiased, truthful, and accurate. For this reason, throughout history, one of the first things authoritarian leaders have attempted to do is control the press. Doing so enables them to control the messages to the people and ensure that all messages are consistent with the authoritarian leader’s point of view. We must appreciate, though, that authoritarian leaders are not limited to rulers of nations. Authoritarians can rule newspapers and news stations as well. The owners of news media frequently push their own political agendas down to their journalists. When that happens, when unbiased, truthful, and accurate reporting gives way to political agendas, when opinions and points of view are delivered as facts, eventually, democracies are destroyed. For this reason, news professionals must embrace their critically important role in preserving our democracy by shouldering the burden of rigid adherence to unbiased reporting. At all costs, they must avoid even the appearance of bias in their words.