speech and consequences

I'm disturbed by our emerging attitude toward free speech.

We all grew up with the phrase, "I may detest what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it."

That is, no matter how controversial someone's message is, there was a large part of America's culture that would wrap it in the flag, so to speak: to protect that person from possible violence or retaliation for simply having expressed something. Violent reactions were considered so wrong in response to even the worst and most horrible message that one might even leap to the defense of one's enemy in order to protect not necessarily that person's point of view but that person's right to express it.

But here's what we're seeing more and more of: "I may agree or disagree with what you say, but if you're foolish enough to say it when you know it will draw fire, you're on your own, buddy."

That's not progress.

Comments

Anonymous said…
You mean like all those Tea Party people who have been lambasted by the media for exercising their free speech? Like them?
barrybrake said…
I do indeed like many of them. But I was really talking more about violent consequences rather than media disapproval.
barrybrake said…
Come to think of it, I need to actually hold you accountable on this. Your question shows something disturbing: that the contract has been rewritten by some, and is now, "You may *not* despise what I say."

Tea Partiers, like everyone, have every right to espouse their beliefs, and Tea Partiers, like everyone, have every right to lambaste the beliefs of others.

The old formulation, which says "I may despise what you say" (I reserve the right to dislike and disagree) "but I would defend to the death your right to say it" (there's something sacred about the freedom of speech and the freedom to espouse even a horrible viewpoint), is something I hope we all eventually stick with.

Popular Posts