Once again, my blood pressure almost blew the top of my head off. Krakatoa has nothing on me when I hear people making basic mistakes when they should just —- know —– better.
A caller to the local talk radio show was upset because the conservative talk shows, in general, were blasting an author for writing a negative book about President Bush. “Don’t you understand, he’s exercising his First Amendment right to free speech!” she almost shrieked. “Why don’t you leave him alone?!” I am of course, paraphrasing, as my ability repeat her comments verbatim were impaired because of the pulsing of blood in my ears drowning out every other word. Once again, the ability of someone to utter the phrase “First Amendment right” does not mean one should assume the speaker has an understanding of this very basic right.
The exact phrasing of the First Amendment runs thus:
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.
First, the right of free speech has nothing to do with suppressing dissenting speech of the PUBLIC. It specifically addresses censorship from the GOVERNMENT. While the callers on most of the major talk shows may be more intelligent or more in touch than government officials, the First Amendment does not restrict the public discourse of these venues. Period.
Second, since when does any action provide protection against the consequences of one’s actions? Simply because one has the right to say (practically) anything they want, nowhere is it documented that one has protection from the fallout of those words. If I raise my hand to a police officer, I will probably be arrested. If I embezzle funds, I will probably go to jail. If my child skips school, well, let’s just say there will be ramifications. Big ones. By the same token, if a man writes a book, he is opening himself up to scrutiny and discussion. It may not be pleasant or agreeable discussion, but the discussion is also protected by the right that gave the author free reign over his words. No whining is justified in this case.
The Dixie Chicks are another example of First Amendment Whining Syndrome. They made a comment in England that did not sit well with their fans, and they returned home to find falling sales and monster truck crushes of piles of their CDs. Nobody said they couldn’t make their derogatory comments. Those “rednecks” that went on a rampage against those circular pieces of plastic probably were the same people that sent their sons and daughters to fight for their right to be idiots. Yet what I heard upon their return was “What is wrong with them? (whimper, cry) We have the right to say what we want!
Nowhere were the Dixie Chicks promised a free pass on their remarks. Nowhere is the author of the current book promised that everyone would sit back and say “How profound! How wonderful! I wish I were like him!”
Actions have consequences. Some of them good, some of them bad. I decide not to eat a doughnut for breakfast, and while my tongue may curse me, my waistline thanks me. I get up an hour early to work, and I get more done. I put too much salt in the dinner I’m cooking, and we must go out to eat. (I’ll let you decide if that’s good or bad.) And, should I decide to say something that someone disagrees with, I will have to bear the consequences of my action. As I said on the radio, “I have the right to stand on a street corner in Harlem and use the “n” word, but I better be wearing a suit of mail, because SOMEONE’S gonna come for me!”
The right to speak does not guarantee automatic agreement with the speech. The government may not censor speech, but the public can certainly vent just as much as the creator of the controversy. I refuse to abandon my right of free speech because someone would prefer that I would. If we followed that policy, then who would determine which comments may be commented upon? Who will be the thought police? And what if the speaker WANTED controversy, to boost sales? Will the speaker have to ASK for public comment? This whole argument is false on its face. Freedom of speech (1) only attaches to the government, i.e. no censorship, and (2) is valid only if it applies to everyone.
Repeat after me:
Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom from consequences….