How “Free” Can Our Speech Be?

I was only in the second grade. A friend had borrowed the pretty, red tennis shoes I kept at school in my cubby for physical education, if my memory serves me correctly. She wore them outside at recess without asking me and got them very muddy. I can still remember her looking up at me from the floor of the classroom as she attempted to scrub the mud off with a few wet paper towels she’d gotten from the restroom. “It won’t come off,” she pleaded with woebegone eyes.

For most of us, freedom of speech does not include the use of violence towards people as a form of that freedom of expression.

I was upset, and our mutual friends rallied to side with me. “Let’s all hate Sandy,” one projected on my behalf. I’m not sure how long the bullying campaign lasted, but I’m still embarrassed to think of it. Eventually we all reunited as friends. I’m not sure why the memory is still so strong—perhaps because it violated everything I’d been taught and was against my normal nature.

Perhaps I remember it because I’ve written about it before, perhaps even in this column. It is a simple example of freedom of speech that we take for granted in a free society—and consequent action, even when misguided.

What we say or write may offend someone else, but as the old adage goes, “I may not agree with you but I’ll defend your right to say it or think it.” This generosity even extends between right and left ideologies and political parties.

Most of us in North America take the right or concept of freedom of speech for granted. Usually freedom of speech is in regard to public expression of ideas (not the private tiffs of me and my friends)—and especially as broadcast in the media. Today we are all broadcasters—or can be, on the World Wide Web.

We may not understand the “other,” and especially across cultures wonder how they could come to believe or behave as they do, yet the Bill of Rights in the United States (1787) and Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada seems to outline basic rights. Canada’s Charter of Rights is much younger, only written in 1960, and is not quite absolute—allowing the government to pass laws that limit free expression as long as limits are “reasonable” (according to Wikipedia) and that are usually applied only in extreme cases of hate speech or obscenity.

For most of us, freedom of speech does not include the use of violence towards people as a form of that freedom of expression—whether religiously motivated or out of prejudice or ignorance. The suicide bomber is an ultimate form of violent self-expression, and the causes and motivation go beyond what I’m able to tackle in one column, but you get the idea.

I was fascinated by a recent examination of the history of free speech by Columbia University president Lee C. Bollinger in The Washington Post (Feb. 15, 2015). He’s also the author of a book on the topic, Uninhibited, Robust and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century. He contends that our modern idea of free speech was really only coming into its own in the 1960s (and we can think of how “hippies” of the time might have moved that along). Bollinger cites the recent attacks in Paris on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and a kosher grocery as extreme examples of how, in our changing times with clashing views and cultures brought so closely together by communication and transportation, people either seriously misjudge the effect of their message that might offend or do it because they want to offend or make a statement.

I remember one time when something I wrote majorly offended the dean of the seminary associated with my college. I may have had the right to write what I wrote, but I was sorry for offending him and his colleagues. Part of the issue was that my offending essay had been printed in the college yearbook for that year, not just as a letter on the opinion board. Eventually I apologized—I wanted to be at peace with this giant figure. I hope it has made me careful as I’ve crafted these columns for over almost 30 years; I know I have offended a few along the way and written things (or went way out on a limb, like maybe here) I’ve regretted later.

As a Christian, I believe in the reminders such as Ephesians 4:29: “Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up” and Colossians 4:6: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone” (both verses from NRSV). These texts go far beyond a governmental statue in regard to our personal use of freedom of speech.

Jesus clearly offended the religious authorities with his free speech and even a small demonstration held at the temple the last week of his life. His speech was not always gracious, far from it. Of course, all of this helped to get him killed, which I’ll talk more about a bit next week.

What do you think? This is your chance to exercise free speech! Post on the Another Way Newspaper Column Facebook page, email me at MelodieD@MennoMedia.org, or write to Another Way, 1251 Virginia Ave., Harrisonburg, VA 22802.