For most Americans, the notion of the First Amendment has long been lost in some history book liner notes. I vaguely remember something about a list of freedoms. Freedom of the press meant you could publish anything disparaging about the government you wanted without fear of reprisal. The freedom of religion simply meant that the King could not dictate the law of the land, and since American was breaking free from British rule, this meant they didn't have to bow down to the whims of the King and the church. The freedom to assemble meant new Americans could protest peacefully against taxation perhaps, and the freedom of speech was the right to disagree with the government without fear that a redcoat militiamen would quarantine your home.
The news propagates this fear of losing our freedoms. There are wars on women, Christmas, religious freedoms and lately, speech. While the attention given to ISIS by many of my friends on Facebook warrants attention, the beheading of Coptic Christians in Egypt has nothing in common with a department store saying, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Today, someone who is pro-life is bemoaned for stifling the reproductive rights of women. Saying that you believe in traditional marriage means you're labeled as a bigot and anti-gay. While we surely have freedom of speech against our government, we seem to have less freedom of speech when it comes to disagreeing with your neighbor.
My son's definition of freedom of speech means he can spout off any opinion, especially those that he does not agree with. He is realizing, slowly, that he cannot say, "This is stupid" towards his teacher (or "this teacher sucks" too), especially within earshot of what he calls the "classroom snitch." He blurted out one afternoon that his teachers were "working him like a slave," failing to realize the insensitivity of the remark and the loose comparison between homework and manual forced labor. He doesn't quite understand that he cannot call his friend a "douche" even though that friend agrees to be called such. He also doesn't';t realize that saying, "these nuts" when he answers a question could get him looks and a few days in detention.
I too learned the hard way that the freedom of speech stops upon those that disagree and those that appose. I was silenced during my years as a sports writer in high school, when the football coach and the principal felt that my words were disparaging and lacked the proper blind's-eye hoorah that a school-run newspaper should have. My Michael Jackson "Thriller" album was taken from me when I was in elementary, because my parodies of his hits were way ahead of their time, and were not appropriate whatsoever for an elementary school environment. Even the note that I passed to a good-looking girl back in junior high detention disparaging my principal's hair piece was not considered free speech. I went from an after school detention to an in-school suspension.
Perhaps this is not what the Founding Fathers were thinking with the First Amendment. Do you think they would ever see a world of ours today, where we have unlimited access to social media? Where we can say just about anything without reprieve? But in my profession, teachers have to be careful about what they say for fear of losing their jobs. I have unfollowed plenty of people on Facebook for complaining and being negative that weren't teachers, but if I went on Facebook and railed on my kids about how awful they were or made remarks about their parents, I'd be reprimanded, perhaps even fired. If my political leanings do not adhere to the mainstream liberal view, I could be made into a scapegoat for why the educational system is wrecked. I cannot post pictures of me having beers in a bar. I cannot post racy memes with sexual overtones.
I wonder if the Founding Fathers knew that the speech they were protecting would be first ran through the filter of common sense. While I could post about the things above, and I've seen them every week on the news from teachers across America, I choose not to because those things are not part of my character. Why should I be protected from the effect of powerful words, when my own conscious should be the first indicator that what is about to be said is wrong.
It's written somewhere in the Bible that I haven't been reading enough of as of late, that man cannot tame the tongue. How evident is this today. Someone smarter than me devised that every YouTube video, every news story and every blog can have a comments section. Just read a comments section today and you'll lose hope in humanity. Along the way for advocating our freedom of speech, we have elected to stop worrying about what we should say. We may have the right to say it, but should we?
So if you've been watching the news, the American Freedom Defense Initiative held a cartoon contest for the best depiction of Muhammad. Any depiction of Muhammad is considered blasphemous in the Muslim world, to the point of death. Of course the event was made to incite and draw attention to themselves. Nothing like a group of flag-waving, Bible fearing, white-only Texans decrying the "peaceful" religion of Islam by being intolerant themselves. The contest drew out the crazies, as two jihadist stormed the event in hopes of killing the people inside. The two men were killed by an off duty cop but the yellow tape wasn't even rolled up when the media took hold of the narrative. The promoters were hoping this event would draw out the radical Muslims--in Texas no less!--in the hopes that this would prove to the world that indeed the radical Muslims were even more evil here in America than the ISIS beheaders an ocean away. But the media attacked the promoters instead. Did they bring it upon themselves by inciting the jihadist? Did they provoke would-be killers into crossing the line. They get what they deserved, many seemed to say.
For the first time in a long time, I felt that old liberalism creep back into the fray. Would my opinion now contradict other decisions and opinions I've had before? For instance, in today's world, a woman who dresses provocative would be subject to more looks, perhaps even unwarranted attention that another woman who wasn't dressed provocative. To even attempt to explain this scenario is now considered slut shaming. In the same breath, we decry the increase of young girls wearing yoga pants in high school and protest the archaic and outdated dress code policies of schools across the nation and point fingers back at the boys who take second looks. So where does it stop? Are we going to the point that girls are not to be told anything about their dress code in fear of offending them, and blame the boys for their perverted hearts? So instead of addressing decorum and manners, on both sides of the aisle, we allow our standards to whittle down out of fear that we will be called a bigot. I would hope there are young girls who choose not to dress in yoga pants simply because they can wear something that doesn't draw attention to their bodies because guess what, their bodies shouldn't be the very thing that matters most. Now the flip side is more evident in our society. Women who dress this way are taking ownership of their sexuality. In some circles, even pornography is considered empowering. Really?
The promoters had every right to stage an event that would incite negative reactions. Although I doubt they thought it would bring out actual murderers, their point was muzzled by their methods. When we fail to take in account the other side, we wont be opening any ears to our cause. Of course it is alarming that jihadist are so fanatical that they would decide to take that kind of action. But I'm not praising the promoters for pointing out that killers live all around us.
Let me say for the record that it would have been a horrific scene if that off duty cop hadn't acted heroically. We'd be talking about something much different. That should be a concern, and while the media may try and distract our attention, the debate on the should we of the argument must be addressed. Should women be catcalled and abused because they have on tight clothes or short shorts? Of course not. I don't buy into the "they-had-it-coming" arguments because that's a slippery slope. But we have to realize as a society that what we wear, what we buy, the tattoos we print on our arms, the music we listen to, the people we choose as friends, our viewing and entertainment habits and what we say on social media will draw attention to us. And in the end, before we choose that shirt from the closet, or before we do whatever pleases our whims, we must start wondering if it's the best for others around us. Everything matters. We are more prone to provoke than to offer mercy and grace. I doubt this is what our Founding Fathers intended. I think they would punch us in the mouth.
