They say that talk is cheap, but is it actually free?
The very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the Congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech or the right to peaceably assemble.
Lately, this freedom here and abroad is being tested.
Last August a police officer shot and killed an 18 year old, six foot five inch man who had just committed a strong-arm robbery, a felony, and when confronted attacked the officer and tried to get the officer’s weapon in order to shoot him. The officer ordered him to surrender but was ignored and after trying to stop his advance by shooting him several times in the arm, the officer resorted to deadly force. Some the eyewitnesses bore false witness claiming that the young man had been shot in the back and at a greater distance than forensic evidence indicated. But many in this Missouri town were angry. They wanted the officer put in prison for defending himself against “an unarmed black teenager” who was attacking him.
When a grand jury, after an extensive deliberation calling every possible witness and reviewing all forensic evidence, ruled this self defense, hundreds in the town and from other areas, began rioting. Some decided to break into and loot the town’s businesses and the rest of the crowd did nothing to stop them. This went on for four months. The non peaceable assemblies were covered extensively by the media which seems to thrive on the sensational. So four months of riots disguised as demonstrations went on all over the country over this injustice that wasn’t. The cost to businesses and municipal governments was in the tens of millions of dollars.
The same thing happened a few months later in New York City when officers tried to arrest a 6 foot, five inch 300+ man who refused to be arrested. The officers grabbed whatever was small enough to get their arms around, his neck, and he died on the scene. It turned out that he had several severe health risks in addition to his morbid obesity including diabetes, heart disease and asthma. The officers did not know of his condition which is protected by HIPPA regulations which restrict free speech when medical information is involved. It was a tragedy.
Once again there were demonstrations when a grand jury did not recommend an indictment for the officers involved. The crowd was seemingly unaware of the fact that there could be no indictment without provable intent. There was no intent to kill or even injure this victim. The people used the First Amendment to complain about a judicial injustice that never happened.
The Mayor exercised his free speech right to express his shock at the verdict and went on to say that he warns his son, who is black, to be aware of the danger police represent forgetting to mention that the majority of all violent deaths in the U.S. are suffered by blacks who number only 13% of the population; that 93% of all violence against blacks is by other blacks and that police are there to protect the victims from the predators. He chose not to use his free speech to talk about this much greater problem.
The NYPD officers used their First Amendment rights by peacefully protesting the remarks their Mayor freely spoke. They turned their backs to him when two officers were assassinated by a young black man who was inspired by the riots against the police and the false impression that the police were the enemy. Many New Yorkers thought that the police went too far in their peaceful expression.
A few weeks ago a French paper known for being at the edge of free speech, published cartoons that were much more offensive than they were funny. They ridiculed Islam by showing depictions of the prophet being vulgar. They knew that some of the six million Muslims living in France might be offended but did it anyway because they were free to do so. Free speech was described by France’s President as being at the very core of French culture along with equality and fraternity. Everyone must be free to say or write whatever they want. The French people gathered to demonstrate their support for this freedom with an estimated 3.7 million in attendance.
A few days later, a black French Muslim comedian posted some remarks on Facebook that were sympathetic to the Muslim terrorists who killed 12 people in response to the cartoons. The Muslim comedian was arrested. Apparently, in France, some speech is more than free than other speech. His comments on his Facebook page were not free but came with a cost - jail.
The other day, the Pope, believed to be infallible, denounced the vicious, murderous attacks but also reminded us that there are limits to free speech. It is not acceptable to use free speech to insult someone else’s religion. Then he went on to say that if a Cardinal said something bad about the Pope’s mother, now long gone, Il Papa would hit him in the face. The Pope would punch someone in the face for exercising his free speech or for any other reason? The Pope? But aren’t we taught to turn the other cheek when offended? Is he saying that if someone offends us that we have a right to strike out violently. Really?
We see the media selectively showing and telling us the news, unwilling to tell the whole story for fear of losing a share of the audience and, therefore, advertising revenue, the life blood of the media, by fully exercising their free speech.
So maybe speech isn’t really free but has a price.
When an old, somewhat demented man exercised his free speech in a private conversation in his own home with his young assistant/mistress by telling her that he objected to the people she was hanging out with and didn’t want them coming to his basketball team’s home games, he was outed and vilified. Never mind that his privacy was violated by taping and then selling the private conversation to a sensation - hungry media. He was sanctioned by the NBA, fined and forced to sell his team for only $2 billion. His privacy was not private and his free speech was not free.
When we learned that a famous Southern cooking maven had once testified during a deposition to using a word the begins with the letter between M and O, we rose up as one and insisted that she be punished severely for that one use of a forbidden word, a word we are not free to speak. It cost her millions of dollars as once-loyal sponsors dropped her as though she was on fire.
When we learned that a recently-hired CEO of a large internet server company had used his free speech to make a campaign contribution of $1,000 to a California initiative that won majority support but not ours, we wanted him fired. How dare he use his constitutionally guaranteed right to support something many of us are against? He resigned. His speech wasn’t free.
At the 50th anniversary of the free speech movement on college campuses which began at our own, U.C. Berkeley, some of its students wanted to deny a famous liberal comedian the right to speak at their commencement ceremony because although he is the champion of liberal causes, he had spoken out against religion and Islam, in particular. They did not agree with his views on one subject and so these young, liberal college students decided him to be unfit to address them. He disregarded their objections and came and gave a speech about being a liberal to a group who knew liberal all too well.
So perhaps we can say it’s like “The Animal Farm” in which all were equal but some were more equal than others: We believe in free speech even when it is offensive as long as we are not offended by it. Say something that many don’t want to hear and you find that your words will have a real cost.
How much will these words cost?
