It was one of those judge shows that jump-started the thought process this time. The particular show I was watching has, as a regular part of each episode, a legal question to which you can respond with your opinion by calling an 800 number. The question for this episode asked if it was a good idea to allow racists the right to free speech, even if their comments incite violence.
My first response was "No, of course not." But the more I thought about it, the more I realized in the United States of America, that is the wrong answer.
It becomes necessary to first define what "racist", "free speech", and "violence" mean. In a day and age where people treat words like Humpty Dumpty did in "Alice in Wonderland", one person's racism may be another person's opinion. One may define "violence" as rioting in the streets and killing innocent bystanders; another may view it as participating in a protest rally; and a third may think it includes actions such as name-calling and yelling at a person who has a differing opinion. There must be concrete definitions for each term in the statement; only after these definitions have been determined can we move on to answer the question.
If we decide to restrict the right of free speech to any group, who makes the decisions? The government? The media? The people of the United States? And which people will oversee this ability to censor? The conservatives? The liberals? Straights, gays, blacks, whites, rich, poor, Christians, Muslims, atheists? Or would it be simply "the majority"--whatever that means these days? Our forefathers came from countries where this policy had been in place for centuries. If it was such a good idea, why did they leave their homelands to live a harsh and sometimes fatal existence in a New World? Evidently they felt there was something worthwhile in having the freedom to speak their minds without fear of repercussion from the powers that be.
Once a particular group loses its right to speak freely, what's to stop the overseeing body to steal the same right from another group? And another? Pretty soon the only groups allowed freedom of speech will be those whose voices echo the belief system of the overseers. Yet another reason why millions of people from around the world moved to what was to become the United States of America. You didn't have to be a puppet to survive; you could speak your mind.
But what if what somebody says hurts somebody else? Good grief, people, have you never heard children speak to each other? Young children have not yet learned how to fill their statements with innuendo, and their vocabularies are not sufficiently large enough for them to know how to reword a statement to soften the blow. Kids say exactly what they mean, and it can be hurtful. All of us grew up hearing (and sometimes speaking) hateful comments directed at other kids. And yet we survived. If the egos of our adult population are so fragile that one ugly comment ruins a person's life, then as adults we need to suck it up and get a spine. (Please realize I am not talking about the more serious issues related to physical, emotional, and verbal abuse. That is an entirely different animal.) The rhyme does not go, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will hurt forever." Grow up, let it go, and move on!
Using the excuse that racist comments could incite violence...well, any speech of any type could incite violence from anyone who is angry enough about any issue and lacks self-control. The person using this argument assumes that EVERY comment DOES result in violence. If this were true, then every time someone with an opinion on any topic voiced his or her views, there would automatically be a violent reaction from those opposed to that view. This is not the case. We do not live in the world defined in the movie "Minority Report"; you cannot determine ahead of time whether a particular comment is going to result in violence, and therefore cannot prevent people from speaking out because of a possibility that may or may not happen.
Finally, restricting speech of any type, no matter how uncomfortable the topic, also restricts any dialog or discussion about the topic being voiced. I hear people say that allowing certain opinions to be heard can "poison" others into believing those opinions to be true. As in the argument about violence, this is a possibility; that does not make it a guarantee. It is just as possible that a rational person presenting the facts against a given opinion can sway the one holding that opinion to change his or her beliefs. Only in the public forums of debate and discussion can all sides of an issue be seen so that public opinion can be found to be either fact or flawed, and changed if necessary. Shutting up one or more sides skews the end result and can lead to an entire populace believing a lie (witness the slavery issue in the United States, or the horrific results of Hitler's views concerning Jews during the Holocaust). We are all adults; we do not need to be guided like children, taught what we are to believe, and sheltered from any opposing viewpoint.
So what do we do in this situation? Our gut reaction is to tell people to shut up; after all, we're only human. But instead I think we need to let people voice their opinions and let the issues play out in public discussion. Removing a person's right to free speech is a gross violation of every US citizen's First Amendment rights. It also comes at a high price. What price? "What goes around comes around"; if you find it acceptable to restrict someone's rights, then someone else will find it acceptable to restrict yours. What's that phrase that's become so popular these days? Oh, yeah, that's right: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
