When we say that we have freedom of speech that means something. What exactly it means, depends on what you want to say and how you mean to say it. I've found that often, we cloak ourselves in FOS when we're about to say something really nasty, perhaps unnecessarily so.
When Rush Limbaugh used some pretty ugly language earlier this week to describe a young woman with whom he disagreed, he used his *free speech* card. He called her a slut on national radio for expressing her opinion with regard to access to birth control. I have to say, that even for Rush, this was going a little too far. It's one thing to have a disagreement, it's another entirely to choose to be so disagreeable.
I get that ratings typically jump the more outrageous the utterances commentators make. I get that some (perhaps many) of us seem to want to fight the culture war by making the opposing side and those holding opposing views 'villians', but even as I get all that, I also get that this level of ugliness in the national discourse, does nothing to advance said national discourse.
Freedom ain't free, so folk often say. In fact, it exacts an extremely high price. Being free means that yes, I am entitled to hold and share my views no matter how repugnant they may be to you. At the same time, freedom should also challenge me to try to share those views in ways that are not repugnant, disrespectful or incendiary. Perhaps I should be asking myself, "Does saying this in precisely this way really move the argument forward? Do I really care to move the argument forward or is my goal just to offend/demonize the other side?" If my goal is only to offend not to influence, then certainly, I can speak as freely and as vulgarly as I wish. If however, my goal is to engage in 'discourse' - which, per dictionary.reference.com, means "a formal discussion of a subject in speech or writing" - then I should try to share my ideas in ways that may potentially draw others to my way of thinking or at the very least, not leave them cringing next to their radio. Calling a woman I have never met a slut simply because she holds a different view, is probably not the way to go if discourse is my goal.
I know Limbaugh and others like him, are free to speak. I also know that this isn't exactly hate speech, but it is hateful. The fact that you're free to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing to do. I'm free to eat 10 pounds of bacon but I don't do it because I know the consequences would be dire. I'm free to drink myself into a stupor on a nightly basis, but I don't do that either because I know my liver won't thank me for it. Good sense prevails because it should and because I don't want to offend the system - my body - with my excesses. The wounds these excesses of free speech inflict upon the body politic are perhaps small, but death by a thousand cuts is still dead. I'm just sayin'.
When Rush Limbaugh used some pretty ugly language earlier this week to describe a young woman with whom he disagreed, he used his *free speech* card. He called her a slut on national radio for expressing her opinion with regard to access to birth control. I have to say, that even for Rush, this was going a little too far. It's one thing to have a disagreement, it's another entirely to choose to be so disagreeable.
I get that ratings typically jump the more outrageous the utterances commentators make. I get that some (perhaps many) of us seem to want to fight the culture war by making the opposing side and those holding opposing views 'villians', but even as I get all that, I also get that this level of ugliness in the national discourse, does nothing to advance said national discourse.
Freedom ain't free, so folk often say. In fact, it exacts an extremely high price. Being free means that yes, I am entitled to hold and share my views no matter how repugnant they may be to you. At the same time, freedom should also challenge me to try to share those views in ways that are not repugnant, disrespectful or incendiary. Perhaps I should be asking myself, "Does saying this in precisely this way really move the argument forward? Do I really care to move the argument forward or is my goal just to offend/demonize the other side?" If my goal is only to offend not to influence, then certainly, I can speak as freely and as vulgarly as I wish. If however, my goal is to engage in 'discourse' - which, per dictionary.reference.com, means "a formal discussion of a subject in speech or writing" - then I should try to share my ideas in ways that may potentially draw others to my way of thinking or at the very least, not leave them cringing next to their radio. Calling a woman I have never met a slut simply because she holds a different view, is probably not the way to go if discourse is my goal.
I know Limbaugh and others like him, are free to speak. I also know that this isn't exactly hate speech, but it is hateful. The fact that you're free to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing to do. I'm free to eat 10 pounds of bacon but I don't do it because I know the consequences would be dire. I'm free to drink myself into a stupor on a nightly basis, but I don't do that either because I know my liver won't thank me for it. Good sense prevails because it should and because I don't want to offend the system - my body - with my excesses. The wounds these excesses of free speech inflict upon the body politic are perhaps small, but death by a thousand cuts is still dead. I'm just sayin'.
