By Kael the Sapiocrat
A couple of days ago, while I was wasting time peering through my social media, I came across a simple and quite educational video which lasted a little more than a minute. "Oooohh, that's such big news," you may say. But when I tell you that if it is a video that prompts me to write an entire blog post about it, it must be something worth looking into. Especially for all of you sapiocrats out there.
The video focused on the topic of the freedom of speech. Yeah, it's probably the most overused and misinterpreted feature of the American experiment -- right up there with the right to bear arms and the separation of church and state.
Let's back this up. Cue Free Speech in the U.S.: Origins.
The freedom of speech is an expressed freedom found in the first article of the United States Constitution where it reads:
"...Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
You read that right. Article I of the Constitution houses the enumerated and implied powers (as well as the function and composition) of the federal Congress. This particular clause lists those areas the national legislature cannot make laws against...including the freedom of speech. However, like with most other provisions, the Constitution remains vague and gives no clear indication on what that speech is and what forms of speech are protected by such clause. I guess the Framers had to keep some branch of government busy.
Well, back to my story.
Naturally, the first thing that caught my attention was the title -- "Should Offensive Speech Be Prohibited?" Knowing me and my strong feelings towards offensive speech, I almost didn't watch the video without prematurely venting in my head. However, I decided to give it a shot. Of course, the video was short and full of some really good ideas on how to remain level-headed when confronted with someone whose thoughts are adverse to your own. Despite how wrong you may think they are, individuals who enjoy such freedoms are just as protected as anyone.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't believe we should live in a society where anyone can say the most obscene and vulgar things to people and justify it by hiding behind a constitutional provision. Make no mistake, my primary attitude is that exercising free speech is reciprocal: if you speak, you must be willing to accept the consequences which may result from your speech. As a matter of fact, the constitutional amendment only protects your freedom of speech from the government. It never said anything about protecting it from society. What I've noticed in our society is that many people believe that free speech is a one-way dialogue. Some feel as though they are constitutionally entitled to say whatever they please and reject all forms of rebuttal the moment they feel offended. This is not what constitutes free speech. If you ask me, it is nothing less than the exact opposite.
Bottom line is, the freedom to speak without fear of government impediment is a provision that many countries cannot boast. In Thailand, for example, lèse majesté laws are put in place to punish individuals who defame or speak ill of the country's monarchy. Under Article 112 of the country's criminal code, convicted persons could face from three to fifteen years in prison. North Korea, the world infamous "Hermit Kingdom," has laws that make Thailand look like a kindergarten time-out with its all-encompassing control over all media and other methods of speech and communication. When considering these countries and the way they do things, it kinda makes you reevaluate those things we sometimes take for granted.
Do me a favor. Watch the video above. Let me know what you think in the comment section below. Speech is free here. Just be ready to accept the consequences. 😜
As the video ends it is pointed out that the best way to deal with something that offends you, is to counter their point. I do this often. Especially with family and friends. I ask questions first as to the source of their belief. This alone usually quashes their beliefs. Most people cannot discern between fact and opinion. I actually changed three votes last cycle due to this approach. Say all the offensive things you want. I will listen and either agree or counter. It is called a ....DISCUSSION.
ReplyDeleteWithout discussion things hide in the dark and fester.
I completely agree. Rather than conversation evolving into a battle of wits, it should be treated as an exchange of thought with all parties understanding that their beliefs are their own. This shouldn't stop anyone from persuading others to agree with them, but by no means should one induce physical, mental or emotional harm just to communicate.
Delete