Should free speech be absolute?

0
193

The civilized world is aghast at the violence visited upon the French cartoonists and journalists who were murdered by Islamic Jihadists. The French publication, Charlie Hebdo, is well known for taking satirical swipes at almost everybody. The gunmen claimed that they were massacring the employees of the publication because Charlie Hebdo had insulted Islam’s prophet. The gunmen were killed by police but violent incidents continue in Europe.

Forty world leaders came together in France to join arms in standing with the French people and declare their disgust and horror over the murders. Even Pope Francis weighed in on the situation. There is no doubt that the jihadists do not believe in the concept of free speech, a right hard-won and held dear by democratic societies.

Free speech means that anyone can say anything and it means that anyone can publish anything — without fear of government oppression or restriction. Such a right, so important to the American founders that it was the very First Amendment, protects the voice of the minority — even the most outlandish and weird — from being suppressed by the majority.

It is why, that in the United States, even hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panther Party can speak and publish. In America, not only may the Democrats and Republicans have their say, but so can the Communists and the American Nazis.

But on the other side of the coin is the matter of respect and restraint. In other words, “Just because I can, does that mean I should?” It is the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to loudly proclaim that American soldiers who are killed or wounded are hated by God because they fight for an America that allows homosexuals to have the same rights (in some places) as other Americans. They have shown up at funerals with their loudspeakers and posters and have proclaimed their message. They have the right and it is protected speech. But should they? Most Americans would say, “No,” because of the pain they inflict on grieving family members and friends.

“With great power comes great responsibility.” While that quote has surfaced in a Spiderman film, it was first uttered in literature by the Frenchman, Voltaire, who apparently borrowed it from William Lamb, a former English prime minister who spoke the words in 1817. The freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, constitutes great power. Should those who wield it not do so responsibly?

Several years ago, I penned a column that poked fun of a country TV preacher that I had seen on television some 40 years earlier. Sometime later, I received a tearful letter from a heartbroken granddaughter who wanted to know why I would make fun of her late grandfather, whom she adored. Her letter brought me to tears and I realized that I had hurt someone, that I had never even met, with my words. Just because I can doesn’t always mean I should.

What happened in France was inexcusable. No one should be murdered over their opinion, their words, or their thoughts. However, living in a civilized society means that its citizens are to be … well … civil. Some of the thoughts and opinions I have don’t show up in my articles or even in my sermons. I can rightly be accused of exercising self-censorship.

I do not believe that the governing powers have, or ought to have, the ability to restrict speech or the press. But I do believe that civil people ought to watch their language, their actions, and their words.

Should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be absolute? Yes it should. But, just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.

[David Epps is the pastor of the Cathedral of Christ the King, Sharpsburg, GA (www.ctkcec.org). He is the bishop of the Mid-South Diocese which consists of Georgia and Tennessee (www.midsouthdiocese.org) and the Associate Endorser for the Department of the Armed Forces, U. S. Military Chaplains, ICCEC. He may contacted at frepps@ctkcec.org.]