Free Speech Has Gone To Far by Robert Socha

Free speech has gone too far because men cannot exercise self-control and have an elementary command of the language. Because of an inability to express oneself without vulgarity, local communities passed laws to limit speech in the hopes of keeping polite society. Unscrupulous men have sued for their right to curse in public, and sympathetic judges have twisted the First Amendment to abridge the community’s ability to defend its public spaces. We have allowed one man’s ability to speak with an unbridled tongue to trump another man’s right to walk the streets unmolested.

Which of the Amendments grants the right to be in public without having our ears assaulted by vulgarity? None of them specifically, but the tenth in general. This omission is why the Danbury Baptists wrote a letter to Jefferson dissenting against the idea that Religion needed to be a protected right. The Baptists postulated that because Religion was delineated in the text, men would one day try to limit its practice. The same argument can be said for speech: because speech is named as a right, men will one day try to limit it.

Through the advent of political correctness, we have seen the implementation of limitations on speech. Since its introduction in the 1980s, the First Amendment’s protections have morphed from speech to offense. We are no longer supposed to speak freely if the words offend the hearers unless they are vulgar. This morphing of societal norms results from bad judicial policy and ignorant men defending impropriety as a right. Additionally, the slide to anarchy escalates catastrophically because of an innate inability to protect public civility.

Take, for example, the insane idea that freedom of speech and assembly gives pedestrians the right to block traffic on a highway. Pro-Hamas protestors, people who advocate in favor of death and destruction, have implemented this horrific strategy at least three times in recent days. They have blocked the entrance to Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City. What unilateral right do these activists have that allows them to trump the rights of every person trying to travel freely? How does the maladjusted blocking of interstate travel supersede the 14th Amendment? How many innocent people missed important events, appointments, or flights? In some cases, protestors would not even allow an ambulance to pass through in its emergency response. Where is the justice for the person needing immediate medical attention?

Shame on the inept response from local officials and police who allow these unfettered blockades to disrupt public order. The proper response to insecure adolescents whose inferred moral superiority denies their neighbor free travel is to drag them off the roadway and arrest them for their selfish actions disturbing the peace. Florida has passed a law enforcing this ideal, and other states should follow, or we will find vigilantes assaulting the offending parties by dragging them off themselves, as has been displayed in Europe.

The Western decline can be linked to these freedoms’ abridgment of others’ rights. When we cannot police ourselves, legislatures and councils have a civic duty to ensure the public trust and must pass laws effectively curtailing deleterious behavior. When ignorant people violate those laws, enforcement must prevail to curtail the escalation of disorder. And we must not accept the continued disruption of daily life, especially for ignorant claims.