Soap Box: Free Speech

I just read the headlines to a few opinion pieces regarding free speech in America. The controversy arises from a man who delivered a talk laced with slurs and foul language at a Board of Supervisor’s meeting public forum period. The man delivered his message and was cut off by a District Supervisor who scolded him for his disrespect and foulness.

The Board has made immediate changes to the way the public delivers messages. What remained was the question of free speech, what that means, and what it means in our time and the future as America continues to be embroiled in social turmoil.

I see this topic from many vantage points. Without getting to detailed about my life story, I am of mixed ethnicity, grew up in a very diverse, yet tribal-like community, and have witnessed many things. I have been called all the names and have known people from all walks and all sides. I guess that is the credibility that I bring to the conversations. Plus, I don’t take sides. I am a neutral voice which flows between the divides based upon my own personal beliefs and values. Basically, I am focused on building and I believe that a great focus and purpose cures a lot of personal tendencies and group-think mentalities.

I do believe that everyone should be able to think and speak freely. We all know and should agree that free speech is clearly defined and has limitations. Anyone can say “fuck the government.” That is what I call a 50/50 proclamation. But say that and send a letter speaking of war and you are now a threat to the public; a terrorist. Say those things and begin to take action and you will be arrested and potentially charged with a crime.

These are the first thresholds: Speech, Message, Action. The notion of free speech should encompass these elements. Say what you want, fine. Say what you want but understand the intent of your message. Does it intend to harm another citizen? Does it intend to cause damage to a government agency? Say what you want, deliver your message, and clearly understand that ones actions are the motions set forth by speech. These motions and actions, built upon the intent of the message, is the important component of free speech.

If we are to survive as a country, we must elaborate in the constitution. This does not mean we destroy it, we must make an adjustment. This is no different to a city’s general plan or county ordinances, which must be updated regularly. The constitution, the most important set of rules in the United States, should be updated every hundred years.

The second threshold to free speech is audience and forum. When you speak freely you must clearly understand who you are speaking to. I know people that have expressed their pointed views and I respect them for it. I do not agree with them nor believe we should sit at the same dinner table, but I understand and appreciate their willingness to say who they are. There is a wonderful clarity there. It is a marker of association and appropriateness: this is who I am, do we entertain the same conversations and basis of knowledge? It is that simple.

When speaking in a public setting, free speech incurs an audience, on in support and one in opposition. The public setting also delineates a forum where multiple parties, with multiple positions, are present. This multitude of ideas is healthy, however, if one group is not defined by open civil discourse, then the process is flawed and can lead to conflict and chaos. That is dangerous and falls beyond the concept of free speech.

The idea of an audience and forum is simple. Regardless of the speech and message, one must know who and where you are speaking to someone. If the speaker is not competent enough to determine these things, then the umbrella of free speech does not apply. That person is an element of disruption unfit to communicate and deliver a cohesive message. I say this because any vile message can be spoken eloquently without the derogatory terminology. I could easily argue about a controversial topic and present it beautifully. Free speech is a semantic endeavor. I believe that is what our founding fathers envisioned. I say this because in the time when the writing of our countries values took place, people spoke differently. Education was not a right, it was a privilege that was expressed gracefully as a display. In those times, words spoken with raw delivery was an abomination and uncouth.

The difference between those times and now, is the forum and decorum has changed and our society has not adjusted. Manners are not vigorously taught nor pursued in the same ways. We are really no different, there are the haves and the have nots; that will never change as much as there is resistance. Even if we change political systems, there will be haves and have nots, winners and losers, those that produce and those that do not.

An additional analogy to the idea of audience and forum is talk radio or reality television. This element possesses all the aspects embedded within free speech: speech, message, action, audience, and forum. The difference is what I call “the plug.” With media, a person has the right and power to pull the plug and cease the interaction. The audience controls the forum and has the ability to deem the message as vile and inappropriate and quickly rebuke it through the act of separation.

A public forum does not always have the power to pull the plug without suppressing the speech through action, and sometimes physicality, which becomes just as inappropriate as the initial message. This is the social spiral that we are trapped in here in America. Who controls the forum and protects the audience when the power to pull the plug does not exist.

Here is an example (and please bear with me). One night at a party I was getting a cup of beer close to the campfire. A tussle erupted behind me at a distance. Curious, I wandered over to see two men fighting on the ground. One man was delivering clean blows to the other. I looked closer and saw it was my best friend getting beat up. Rather than intervene, I spread my arms out and backed the crowd up: “let them go.” I said.

That is the way it needs to be when someone eloquently delivers a message that we do not agree upon. That person could be attacking your view, maybe even your freedom, but let them go. Let them speak. That is the proper way. My friend, who is like a brother to me got his ass kicked that night. He had a little too much to drink and he payed the price. If our roles were reversed, he would understand to do the same for me. If it started fair and within the bounds of clean conflict, it should remain that way. Free speech is no different.

As Americans we must be able to present our views. This presentation must be performed beautifully and intelligently. The speech must exhibit control through poise and composed language. The speech must be presented in a way that the audience may not agree but they have no right to pull the plug because the speaker is not a disruption to the forum. The speaker must have the ability to speak. If the speech becomes lacking of decorum unfit for public consumption, then the forum must be taken away without delay. Speakers must know this before they begin to orate their message.

Passions will get escalated and voices will rise, we should expect that. We must understand that order is sometimes created out of chaos. However, we must also understand that chaos unchecked, becomes rampant and destructive to others and itself - Chaos does not cease at the deliverer, it is all consuming and must be avoided.

Speech. Message. Action. Audience. Forum.