anotherlook

Something recently happened at this site that has made me question the perception of “freedom of speech” and just what that concept truly means. While I am not passing judgment, I am clarifying what I feel is a misconception in the understanding of “freedom of speech” – recognize this.

One definition of freedom is “the right to speak or act without restriction, interference, or fear.” Yet, another definition is “the absence of something unpleasant, the state of being unaffected by, or not subject to something unpleasant or unwanted.”

When “freedom” is combined with “speech” the initial perception is that one has the freedom to speak, without censorship or limitations, however time and time again in “reality” this all inclusive concept does not apply without consequences, judgments and sometimes even death.

In reality, the right to freedom of speech is not ABSOLUTE and even in those countries that thrive on the concept of freedom of speech there are limitations to the concept. The concept of freedom of speech it self has been debated for centuries – as far back as ancient Athens in the later 6th or early 7th century BC. However, overtime and with the abuses of the concept, more and more clarification has taken place which in some cases have placed restrictions on the concept of free speech.

More recently, according to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems and society at large, and referenced in Wikipedia.com, limits have been placed on freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights. These limitations follow the principles of the “harm principle” or the “offense principle” to include such things as pornography or hate speech.

Defamation, libel and slander are civil wrongs, torts that involve the communication of false information about a person, a group, or an entity, that harms a reputation; decreases respect, regard or confidence; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against an individual or entity and the laws governing these torts are the same and serve to restrict, under law, one’s freedom of speech.

Although there is a burden of proof associated with allegations of defamation, libel and slander the important thing here is that the possibility exists to seek damages, in a court of law as well as the restrictions these torts place on the ABSOLUTE conditions of freedom of speech.

Another form of restrictions placed on freedom of speech is know as “hate speech” which is a term for speech intended to offend or inspire hate towards a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, etc. citing such speech as amounting to discrimination.

In recent years hate speech and terms used to express hatred or contempt towards a group of people have been deemed “politically incorrect” and prohibited here in the United States as well as in European countries. Again there are legal remedies that are available towards the prosecution of such things as hate speeches or hate crimes where verbalizations of offensive words have been uttered.

Moral issues are arising in the concept of freedom of speech with the cases of bullying leading to the deaths of children trying to escape the pain of being constantly put down and at war with other children at school. Of late, the question of bullying has come under fire as children, exercising their freedom of speech, are stepping up their assaults on classmates with constant harassment (face to face and through social networking channels) and name calling as well as hands on attacks.

Cyber bullying is being looked at which will eventually place restrictions on what can be said about an individual, organization, etc. on-line, once more taking steps to inhibit the concepts of freedom of speech.

What I find very curious is the fact that rather than exercise common sense and sensitivity, people seem to need “big brother” in the form of laws and court actions to direct them in things that should be, without clarification, morally right. Even viewing the sad case of Steve McNair’s death, I have to wonder if the lies he told his girlfriend are what pushed her over the edge. Are lies morally right to achieve selfish, petty goals? Do lies infringe on my freedom to choose based on correct information given me?

While freedom of speech is a beautiful thing, like any other freedom there are moral responsibilities, consequences and rules that govern these freedoms; freedom is never free or cheap and sometimes lives are at stake in your pursuit of freedom.

And that’s the way I see it!!

San Diego Dinner Cruise - (Uncomplicate your life if only for a moment)