It's time for a reality check ...

Freedom of speech must be protected, even when you don’t like what’s being said
Some believe in freedom of speech for everyone and accept that what they hear may be hurtful or offensive, but should be protected nonetheless. 

Others believe in freedom of speech only if they agree with what’s being said, and believe their own right to freedom of speech includes abridging the speech of others.

Freedom of speech has limitations – you cannot yell “fire!” in a crowded theater is the classic example.  But the courts of the land have generally accepted the right to free speech – especially political speech – as an essential element of our democracy. 

The problems almost always arise when someone is offended by what’s being said –as when the Westboro Baptists brought anti-gay signs to military funerals, clearly offensive to mourners and the public in general.  However, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld their right to protest – no matter how offensive the signs and how obnoxious their behavior might have been to the families and the vast majority of the public.

It was the right decision. 

Recently, the manager of the Miami Marlins was quoted as saying that he admired and respected Fidel Castro, because, as reported in the news, he said that people had been trying to kill Castro for about 60 years and he was still there.

Now that’s not the most politically correct thing to say in Miami as those of us who’ve lived there know, and the Cuban community went ballistic.  The manager was suspended by the team’s management for five games without pay. 

Some people said that was unfair – that he had a right to his opinion.  Others made the point that to praise Castro was – to the Cubans in Miami – akin to praising Hitler.


This is entirely different than the Supreme Court case, although there are elements to protecting free speech in this situation as well. 

The big difference is that while he had a right to express his opinion of Castro, he also bore the consequences of exercising that right – being suspended by the business that employed him for five games without pay.  

If he worked in a 7-11 or an auto-repair shop, nobody would care and he could spout off all he liked about anything.  And probably would.  But the business that employed him – and for which he is a very visible representative – is in the business of selling tickets to baseball games in a community that was certainly going to be ticked off, perhaps enough to not buy tickets anymore. 

Did he have a Constitutional right to say what he did?  Of course, no matter how bone-headed it was in the context of where he worked.  No one denies that.  Was the suspension unfair?  Perhaps, but also understandable in a purely business context.     

As a private citizen, if you truly believe in free speech, and want to protect your continued  right to it, you have to be willing to put up with hearing things you don’t like.  Popular opinion should never dictate what is and isn’t protected free speech. 

That doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and claim immunity from any consequences because free speech is a protected right.  If you do material harm to someone else – like your employer – by exercising your right, you have to expect to bear the consequences.  Which he did. 

So this one isn’t a Constitutional case; it’s just business. 

What’s more worrisome today is the on-going attempt by some to muzzle anything and anyone they disagree with to enforce what they feel is proper political correctness – which is always solely in the eye of the beholder. 

They don’t want to hear any view but their own, nor do they want anyone else to even have access to opinions that differ from their own.  In short, they are totalitarians in the making, be they far left, far right or activists for one cause or another.  They are intolerant of opposition.  

It's their way or no way.  And we know enough history to see what the end game of totalitarians always is – the loss of personal freedom, at the very least.   

Preventing anyone from exercising their right by heckling or shouting down the speaker, or blocking entrances to a venue, are outright attacks on every person’s right of free speech and place us all only a short step away from a Fahrenheit 451 world.  


Muzzling speech and alternative opinions are the precursors.