Free Speech and the Need for Self-censoring

The following is a letter to the editor that I got published in the Utah Statesman, the newspaper for Utah State University. This is what I submitted; the published version (22 Jan 2015) was slightly altered.

The other day, I read in The Utah Statesman the article “Censored: Threats and attacks inspire discussions of freedom of speech.” As discussed in the article, it is clear that the recent cases of violence against people because of what they printed are appallingly inappropriate responses. As an American citizen, I learned to value our Bill of Rights, just as other Americans. But on the other hand, as an intelligent and thinking human being, I have been increasingly concerned that we often justify too much in the name of rights, such as “free speech.”

I’m concerned that too many Americans may have become overly concerned about preserving their rights while neglecting their duties and responsibilities that come with those rights. In the case of freedom of speech and press, we have a duty to keep our public expressions within proper moral bounds. Freedom of speech and of the press in the Constitution had more to do with ensuring that the truth of a matter was not suppressed. It was never intended as a license to publish any disgusting, offensive, or deceptive thing that man might conceive.
 
Imagine a meeting of top decision makers in a business or government entity who meet together for an important decision. Throughout the meeting, all the attendees shout out their opinions and viewpoints at the same time, without listening to the others. They hurl insults and false information at each other. Where would such a meeting be headed? Will these leaders make a great and profound decision? Or would it more likely be a futile exercise in chaos? Clearly the situation merits some level of control and organization. There must be some boundaries for the communications that take place.

The same is true for our public expressions through print and broadcast media, art, or any other public communication medium. In order to retain our freedom of speech, we must take seriously our duty and responsibility to consider the effects of what we publish. We should ask ourselves questions such as these: How will it affect others? Am I just framing it this way mainly to offend some target group? Am I intentionally misleading anyone? How might this affect the culture or community? Consideration for others is a substantial part of civil society.

If we routinely abuse our rights and freedoms, in time we will loose them. Examples of this abound in our government regulations. For example, lending institutions lost the freedom to control how they express information about their loan policies; they must follow the requirements of the “Truth in Lending Act.” Sarbanes-Oxley is another example of limits on freedom in the business world. Food marketers must follow the requirements for food labels. Advertisers have requirements that restrain some of their freedom of speech. Often such regulations came as a result of individuals or groups using their freedom of speech to mislead people. Laws against slander and libel are also limits on our free speech. Sexual harassment laws came about mainly because too many men exercised their “free speech” in ways that offended too many women. But the limits and restraints imposed against someone abusing a right don’t always come from government, as the recent violence suggests. In cases where one provokes a reaction by the abuse of a right, pushing the boundaries of propriety, the reactions can sometimes be unpredictable and come at a much higher cost than expected.

A close-to-home example of such costs relates to the recent cancellation of Anita Sarkeesian’s appearance at USU. Video game companies abused their freedoms and rights in order to produce video games depicting virtual women being abused and murdered at the whim of their male gamers. The unexpected high cost is that they have created a culture of gamers that would threaten and intimidate a real woman who would dare speak against these games.

In our individualistic culture, we often elevate the status of “me” while disregarding the value of “them.” We are too ready to claim our personal rights, while at the same time too unconcerned about the effects of our actions on the wellbeing of others around us. Unrestrained freedom and diversity can destroy our nation. We must remember that freedom and diversity must be moderated by such uniting moral values as caring for others, self control, and a genuine desire to know and share what’s true.