The True Cost of Free Speech

Just what part of "free speech" do you not understand?

Apparently a lot, if what I'm reading and hearing in the various national and state media is any indication.

It's a bit ironic, and unfortunate, that people who ply their words, spoken or written, can be so easily led into dead-end arguments over what does and does not constitute free speech.

Let's examine the actual words of the First Amendment that are applicable: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."

That's it. Short and sweet. Unfortunately Congress has made all sorts of laws that abridge freedom of speech, including but not limited to the McCain-Feingold restrictions on campaign contributions, but we won't open that can of worms today. The main point is that the prohibition is on Congress trying to shut up citizens through its control of the lawmaking process. The Founding Fathers knew that it would be a great temptation of the national government to silence dissent because, well, that's what governments generally try to do, sooner or later.

The most important speech, it has been held by the courts, is political speech, for it is the most troublesome and therefore the speech most in need of protection.

Most of us understand this well enough.

Where we began to get into trouble is thinking that the First Amendment prohibition against infringing upon speech applies to everyone, every institution, and every situation. It doesn't.

There's been a lot of discussion, including here, of Janeane Garofalo's denunciations of the tax day tea parties as "racist." Most of those who objected to her comments did so on the grounds that her facts were untrue -- not whether she had the right to utter them. There are a few who would like to instigate a boycott of her acting job on Fox's "24" in retribution. I say, "Go for it, if that's what'll make you feel better." Personally, Garofalo is a small minnow in the ocean of opinion and I've got bigger fish to fry. But I think two things must be clear:

1) Garofalo exercised her right of "free" speech on the MSNBC megaphone, and I have no problem with that. It was their right to invite her, her right to speak, and my right to think she's crazy as a loon.

2) Speaking freely isn't exactly like saying there is no cost. If enough people pressure Fox, and they decide to write her out of the show (they will not, by the way), then Garofalo has only herself to blame. The price tag for one's free speech is often very expensive.

Case in point, Miss California Carrie Prejean probably cost herself the Miss USA title on Sunday night when, in response to a question from (gay) judge Perez Hilton, she declared that in her opinion, marriage should be between a man and a woman, period. She came in second.

Hilton, on his blog Monday, called her "a dumb bitch."

He went on to describe her as having 'half a brain' and said he would have stormed onto the stage and ripped off her tiara if she had won.

I think we can assume he didn't vote for her.

Miss Prejean, in contrast, said she did not regret her answer because she believes God was testing her faith.

"I have no regrets about answering honestly. He asked me for my opinion and I gave it to him. I have nothing against gay people, and I didn't mean to offend anyone in my answer.''

She told Fox News:

"By having to answer that question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith. I'm glad I stayed true to myself."

Both Prejean and Hilton were exercising their right to speak freely, but you cannot say that there were no costs associated with the outcome.

Mr. Hilton, who had every right to vote against her, will pay no price for his gutter language and personal disparagement of Miss Prejean. He will be fawned over and comforted by the sycophantic cultural elite for having to endure such an awful thing as a beautiful woman expressing her opinion. For this she must certainly deserve his opprobrium!

Miss Prejean will undoubtedly be comforted by some, but she will also face the wrath and potential ostracism of the entertainment and media establishment for her cultural sin. Plus she lost the contest, so you cannot say she is not paying a price for her "free" speech.

Notice that the federal government is not involved in this "speech" controversy. It has no role to play. There is no "rights" issue. This is as it should be. However, it may not always be thus.

Without a doubt there will be calls for greater screening of Miss USA contestants, and perhaps even howling demands for legislative codes against "hate speech," which in reality are crimes against thought. This is what happens when a culture decides that "group rights" (or social rights) trump those of the individual. We have fallen a long way from the time when most agreed with Voltaire's statement: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

And because we are a nation of intellectual lightweights who do not understand the nature of the freedoms we enjoy as the legacy of our brilliant Founding Fathers, and the constitutional protections against such monstrosities called "hate speech laws," we will be forced to defend principles which were once self-evident.