The High Price Paid for Freedom of Speech

by Karen Hatter | April 8, 2009 at 07:46 am

959 views | 101 Recommendations | 25 comments

It is always parroted that the exercise of freedom of speech and the constitutional guarantee protected and accorded those who reside in the United States of America, protects all speech, including speech that may not be agreeable or appealing to all whose ears may find some of these expressions loathsome and hateful.

But, what of responsibility? Can responsibility be weighed, expected and legislated as a component to bring those who would be guilty of the equivalent of that careless, thoughtless person shouting 'Fire!' in that crowded building, forcing some form of accountability?

When Senator Barack Obama entered the race for President of the United States in February 2008, his campaign was more or less forced to request Secret Service protection for their candidate, earlier than any other presidential candidate since the Secret Service began extending their protection to presidential candidates in 1968.

After his election, President Obama has received an ever increasing number of death threats, sadly, with each level of his successful bid for the presidency, his candidacy, the election and the inauguration adding yet another record amount of threats all along the way. Several alleged plots/threats have been thwarted.

The Secret Service has pointed out that, although some of this rancor may be due to the President's racial composition, there are other elements that have some individuals alarmed and angered at the fall 2008 presidential outcome. Among the elements of concern for most Americans during these trying times, at the top of the list, are the economy and issues that hit home for so many dissatisfied Americans, effecting them on a very personal level: job worries, that is, possible loss of job or having lost their job, bleak prospects for regaining employment and their understanding, or lack thereof, of policy issues that they feel will directly impact them and their lifestyles.

Adding to these concerns and fears, currently, there is misinformation flooding the airwaves and the internet that the Obama administration is knee deep in a plan to take people's guns away from them, an untruth being touted loudly and maniacally by those who have proclaimed themselves 'voices for the voiceless'. Second amendment gun rights groups are touting their 'understanding' that this fear is a real concern, one that should not be taken lightly by those who are desirous of a continuation of their constitutional right to bear arms.

Guns and ammunition began flying off the shelves the day after the election of President Obama on November 5, 2008.

All so called proponents of one ideology or the other 'spin' facts to reflect their articulated position, pro or con, depending upon which side of the issue they wish to plant themselves. However, since the 2008 presidential election cycle and campaign began, the tendency to offer clearly incendiary, downright dangerous rhetoric has gotten far out of hand, with talking heads of the Right now calling for citizens to arm themselves and rise up to take back their country.

Not all who may hear that call are capable of distinguishing or understanding rhetorical flourish, assuming that is what was the intent by those issuing those commanding statements. Self professed crusaders, all donning a cape to save America from 'liberals', with the word 'liberals' uttered through clenched, disapproving teeth, tick off one by one the horrors of the new world being ushered in, with actual visuals of Nazi Germany displayed in the background, ranting of the coming fascism and calling for the overthrow of the current administration, elected by the majority of Americans in the United States of America on November 4, 2008.

One representative in the United States' Congress, representing Minnesota, has proclaimed that Americorp, who has had members, in the past, work with local and national organizations like Habitat for Humanity, with Americorp meant to be a conduit through which young people can become engaged in the process of voluntary service to their country, that's is to the United States of America, with this representative claiming the service is mandatory, which it is not, this representative states that she fears, in reality, Americorp is a 're-education' camp, that will brainwash the youth of America.

Self described conservatives and right wingers rail day after day, night after night, on television, in print and most definitely all over the internet, that the life many Americans have come to love is being destroyed, to be replaced with an ominous, evil empire, meant to dominate all of America. Fear. Fear. Fear.

No matter how wild eyed or far fetched many Americans may view some of these individuals promoting their form of fear of the current administration, bear in mind that fear is most often an unreasonable emotion. If fear can cause many, who might normally be calm and level headed individuals, to transform into mindless, heedless actors on a stage, set against a backdrop of less than fully developed, often obscured and flawed scenery, what might fear cause the 'less grounded' among us to do?

This is not a reworking of the 'Twinkie' defense, 'Too much sugar made me/him/her/them do it!' At what point does American society step up and acknowledge that, as has always been in difficult times, those that would exercise their freedom of speech, need to be aware that many individuals are looking for a target upon which to focus their anger? When caught up in a whirlpool of fear and confusion, no one can think straight.

The most recent incident that occurred in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Saturday, April 4, 2009, with a 23 year old man killing three police officers that came to his mother's home, at her request, to get him out of the house, had his friends describing his fear that his guns would be taken from him by the current administration.

In July 2008, a distressed man walked into a church in Tennessee, opening fire, killing two people and injuring others, before he was wrestled to the floor by parishioners in the church, wrote what was meant to be a suicide note.

From his handwritten, four page note: .... The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life aint worth living anymore don't just Kill yourself. Do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals!

This note was found by law enforcement, who were searching the man's home for a motive.

They also found copies of Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage, Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity and The O'Reilly Factor by Bill O'Reilly.

No truer statement was made by one of the church members, John Bohsted, that tackled Jim Adkisson, the man in Tennessee.

An excerpt from Glenn Beck and the Rise of Fox News' Militia Media : “ There are a lot of people who hate liberals and if we stir that around in the pot and on the airways, eventually there will be people (like Adkisson) ... who get infected by the violent rhetoric and put it into violent action,” Bohsted said. He remained worried about future violence: “Do you think there are other Jim Adkissons out there listening to hate speech? I do.” Me too. So do I.

Also at NowPublic: Playing with Fire

The 'Right Wing' Conspiracy

3 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Roy C

at 10:52 on April 8th, 2009

"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage, Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity and The O'Reilly Factor by Bill O'Reilly."

Three dangerous books! Have you read any of them? Do you have the slightest idea what is in any of them?

Nothing being said on the airwaves today should be silenced by legal action. Fight your fight in the airwaves and in the blogs and wherever you deem it necessary. But the hate speech concept is a fraud.

Libelous speech should be dealt with in civil courts.

Were you concerned about the tragedy in Harlem caused by Reverend Sharpton? The death of the Korean grocers? How about the whole false rape thing he helped back?

Karen Hatter

at 11:05 on April 8th, 2009

Had you read the commentary carefully, you should have recognized I did not use the words 'hate speech' nor did I claim the books to be dangerous.

Also, had you read carefully, you would have read I did not call for anyone to be silenced. I called for responsibility, accountability, from those that link the President and the current administration to images of goose stepping Nazis, rant about taking money from hard working people to give to those who refuse to work and the rest of it, knowing full well that their words and imagery, for some, conjure blinding fear, terror and hate in the minds of many.

The rantings of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and the rest may not be hate speech per se but many who view and hear the vitriolic discourse and ranting seem moved to hate.

aurealeus

at 12:44 on April 8th, 2009

Sean Hannity is one of the most dangerous propagandists in the media and has only one agenda... an attempt to defame President Obama and derail the Democratic Party. I can only take a few minutes of him (Rush included) just to keep abreast and see what these two liar-extremists are up to. I use to like hearing what O'Reilly had to say but he seems to be moving closer to "Hannity's America" everyday. Beck doesn't bother me as often. At least he doesn't lie as often as the others and is somewhat entertaining at times. I am not familiar with Savage but something tells me I am about to learn.

What is needed is more public access to the airwaves similar to what is finally being achieved through online publications such as Now Public where the common person can have a voice.

Roy C

at 11:09 on April 8th, 2009

Why is a non-important detail mentioned? Because....? You want to allege but not criticize directly.

Hate speech is where you are going and many who follow Sharpton and Rev Wright and Ferrakhan are also people who seem "moved to hate".

Karen Hatter

at 11:19 on April 8th, 2009

I am more than sure you have no idea where I am going, as you say.

Any and all of your observations regarding myself have been, in the past and are, currently, incorrect.

Roy C

at 12:17 on April 8th, 2009

Amazing that I can be so incorrect. A person has to work very hard to always be wrong. Modicum of responsibility is what you need to exercise in your opinion, just as we all do.

Karen Hatter

at 12:28 on April 8th, 2009

It truly is amazing, Roy, as also is your need to instruct others how to write their opinion pieces, seeking for their commentaries to reflect yours or some other viewpoint.

As you exhibit this behavior over and over, it is apparent you do work very hard at being incorrect.

Roy C

at 20:51 on April 8th, 2009

Your opinion piece is subject to review, criticism and general comment. Yes, for me it is "truly amazing"...to think yourself outside all that, even extraordinary. You write what you want and I write what I want about it. That is Free Speech. You don't seem to like it very much in the story or here.

And I will continue to post my opinion of your opinion as is my right and as is the intent of NowPublic to encourage responsible debate on issues.

Karen Hatter

at 09:54 on April 9th, 2009

It is your right to post your opinion, Roy.

However, it is NOT your right to instruct me how I should right my opinion piece nor insist I adopt or incorporate YOUR thoughts or opinions in my opinion pieces.

Your efforts to impose your will upon my writing opens your actions up to be viewed by some as an attempt to bully those with whom you disagree.

Attempting to impose your will upon another is not an acceptable course of action for enocuraging debate.

Those tactics foster confrontation.

aurealeus

at 12:36 on April 8th, 2009

"Hate speech is where you are going and many who follow Sharpton and Rev Wright and Ferrakhan are also people who seem "moved to hate". "

Sharpton, Wright, Ferrakhan.... all the same to me. Throw them in together, mix 'em up and whaddayaget?

Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly. Same difference just opposite sides of the same street.

Amy Judd

at 11:34 on April 8th, 2009

Considering this is an opinion piece, please remember to discuss the issues presented, and not accuse the author of having an agenda (it's an opinion piece).

Pythiian1

at 15:21 on April 8th, 2009

Good points, Karen. I think, there ought be a modicum of responsibility in the exercise of freedom of speech.

Far too often, people have used words irresponsibly just to provoke or to malign others or to spew intolerant and hateful words without a thought about the consequences of their words. The representative from Minnesota is among the examples of those who utter irresponsible and divisive statements with, apparent impunity.

Roy C

at 12:16 on April 8th, 2009

The left and the right, and, on occasion, even the center, distorts or outright lies about what is going on.

For every right-wing lunatic, the world has seen any number of left-wing ones as well. The "high price" of Freedom of Speech is well worth paying. It is the only road to the truth. Consecrating one side as "right" and then allowing them to censor the media is a formula for Red Fascism, the authoritarian governments such as Fidel's and the whole Easter Bloc under the Soviet Union, while the opposite has existed in the West under "Black Fascism" (the color of their shirts, Hitler and Mussolini) and even in the US.

Be afraid of both and be a critic of your own side when your own side breaks the rules. That is what I want to see.

center (not verified)

at 13:54 on April 8th, 2009

The difference my right wing friend is that (currently, in America) extreme left wingers usually go so far as to mock the right and call them dangerous, whereas the right wingers go so far as to say "kill the liberals"... even you, in all your bias, should be able to see the difference in that.

aurealeus

at 12:57 on April 8th, 2009

"Adding to these concerns and fears, currently, there is misinformation flooding the airwaves and the internet that the Obama administration is knee deep in a plan to take people's guns away from them, an untruth being touted loudly and maniacally by those who have proclaimed themselves 'voices for the voiceless'.

Second amendment gun rights groups are touting their 'understanding' that this fear is a real concern, one that should not be taken lightly by those who are desirous of a continuation of their constitutional right to bear arms."

Actually, there WAS a provision within the original Recovery Act that was designed to impose new Federal Regulations on the sale of guns and amunition, thereby effectively transferring these regulatory powers from the States to the Federal Government. Included was language to allow citizens to own no more than one or two guns (unless they were registered as a gun-dealer) and that all private gun sales must be contracted through a gun dealer. The provision also planned to impose extrodinary high fees on licensing thereby increasing the price of guns so that only wealthy persons would be able to afford firearms and amunition in addition to the licensing fees so I can understand these "gun rights groups" fears. Fortunately for our right to bear arms and Constitution, President Obama found it unwise to sign that version of "The Act" into law.

I read the original bill and this provision was indeed made part thereto. After reading this article, I downloaded the bill that the President did sign and the provision was no longer there.

Roy C

at 12:23 on April 8th, 2009

Yes, because the "gun nuts" were well enough informed to successfully wage a campaign against the left's authoritarian aspect and stop that provision.

All the European countries have a less well-defined concept of freedom of speech that should not even be called "freedom of speech".

Sometimes the problem is structural such as when you make a crack about Berlusconi and he runs three channels of RAI state TV and three channels of his own TV. One of the most prominent comedians now transmits only from Switzerland as a result of that nexus of power.

Why was the European constitution rejected by the UK, by Ireland, and by several other countries?

Answer: the Irish and others were very worried about that "modicum of responsibility" that the government in Brussels was going to yield in its own favor.

Just what they, the left, want to do here: censor Hannity and Limbaugh because they, the left, have been unable to compete with them.

Air America went to hell, ratings-wise, very quickly.

Emezie

at 13:41 on April 8th, 2009

I wondered what happen to "you do not criticize the president during war time" and if you do you are unpatriotic. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, should be happy they live in a country where you are free to say your mind without real consequences. In some other countries, they would have being locked up, and put on trial for high treason.

These folks are dangerous, and their rhetoric should be a concern to all Americans. They do not realized the damage they are doing to their country's stability in the name of partisanship. Congratulation Karen for a well written and timely article.

aurealeus

at 14:15 on April 8th, 2009

Presidents have always been criticized whether in peacetime or wartime and I suppose depends upon which side of the fence you sit, whether you might be considered patriotic or not. That's the beauty of the First Amendment giving us the right to free speech. Our elected officials should be criticized for things that the people find wrong or flawed otherwise how would the public know the truth or be able to decide what is truth and what is not ? In the same respect, they should praised and recognized for a job well done.

The only unfortunate aspect of "free-speech" is where some have more access to mass-media outlets than others... i.e., Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., where one has the ability for more free exercising thereof in promoting their biased and personal agendas. Fair and Balanced? Ha, I think not.

jazzyzazzy

at 14:59 on April 8th, 2009

Freedom of speech is freedom to speak your own mind. As long as the speech you make is based on true facts.

duo

at 16:03 on April 8th, 2009

I am having a major freedom of speech and freedom of press issue right now. I am trying to publish an article about Eric Holder firing the Internal Ethics Leader at USDOJ, but my cyberstalkers don't want me to publish it at NP. I posted it twice, and it just sits there and says, "You must put a title." I was going to email it at Yahoo, and I got a message that YAHOO HAD CLOSED DOWN! Can you believe such desperation? It is not that they are containing the news about the USDOJ Ethics Leader - WP carried that this afternoon. They just don't want to allow what I have to add to the news. I finally broke through at Yahoo, but no luck at NP. But you can see it anyway - Just go to Mary Neal's Sharebook at Care2. http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/sharebook/513396753

QueensHart

at 16:06 on April 8th, 2009

Unless you can also furnish examples of how they apply the principle of criticism of their own side then objective observers would infer you are prejudice. No side is infallible and no perspective is always wrong.

Roy C

at 20:28 on April 8th, 2009

Karen, have you nothing to say in response to his post?

Obama has a major equivocation going about guns. Says he won't ban and then appoints the people who want to ban them.

The Americorp progam does not seem to shape up as something like the Peace Corp. Seems radically different, like a government run version of ACORN.

jumpingone

at 21:28 on April 8th, 2009

If this was a court case with sale,s verses gun accidents then the answer is simple gun get into the hands of children

generaldecay

at 23:20 on April 8th, 2009

As always, Karen, this is an excellent piece.

I want to echo Amy's request to keep the comments on-topic and away from the personal. Thank you.

albertacowpoke

at 07:47 on April 9th, 2009

As a Canadian I see it this way. As long as the right and left are at each other.s throat without actually engaging in a constructive debate, nothing will ever move forward. Despite the comments on Hannity, O.Reilly and Limbaugh, all have the opportunity to point out any inaccuracies. Despite not believing all they say, I find them entertaining. The way to combat them is to find left wing hosts that are equally entertaining. It all boils down to who can win the listening or viewing audience and therefore the advertisers.

George Bush wasn.t perfect, but I sincerely believe that he did what he thought right for America. He did have to deal with 911 and really only lost popularity over his war in Iraq. You may disagree, and that.s your right. On the same token Obama has been in the office for 80 days now. If I have any criticism of his administration, it is that he is moving to fast to implement all of his agenda. Some of it has been signalled during his campaign some of it done on the fly. My concern is that haste is waste and that being the President should not be a popularity contest. There is a lot going on out there with the Economy, Iraq, Afghanistan and terrorist threats in general. All of these issues, require careful and thoughtful action and none of them can be solved by reacting but by thoughtful planning.

All this to say, America wake up, you can.t keep bashing each other and hope to succeed.

By the way did anybody see the lates video by EMINEM mocking Sarah Palin. Is that right? Barney Franks attack on that students question was quite entertaining too, when he was asked What responsibility, if any, do you accept, for the finacial meltdown.