Even though something is written as a law, sometimes you have to examine the caveats.
If there is one topic that has rankled many nerves lately is the notion of the first amendment in lieu of the controversy surrounding San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. I’m not going to make this a rehash Kaepernick column but rather take the conversation of free speech to another layer of society.
To refresh your memory, Kaepernick sat during the National Anthem of the 49ers preseason game against the Green Bay Packers. Kaepernick later explained his reason.
"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game. "To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."
The reactions were varied with many arriving at the conclusion that they supported Kaepernick’s first amendment right to express his views but that he chose the wrong way to do it. One week later, Kaepernick knelt during the National Anthem against the San Diego Chargers and also pledged that he would donate $1 million dollars to charities that aid communities in need. Within reason, the reaction subsided but is still a heavy talking point.
However, I do not want this post to be about rehashing Kaepernick but rather examine what freedom of speech really means. In a nutshell, the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, prohibiting Congress from interfering with freedom of religion, speech, assembly, or petition. I believe this freedom is a good thing because without it, the USA becomes North Korea and is that what you really want?
While the first amendment protects your right to express what you want, there is also caveat. It may protect you from going to prison but it does not absolve you from other ramifications such as criticism. You can also lose your job. People have suffered such consequences for social media posts. Is it right? You can interpret as you wish.
The example that I keep pointing out is that as a white male, I “can” go into any predominantly black neighborhood with a white supremicist flag and utter racial slurs that rhyme with word trigger but does that mean I “should” do it? Well, using common sense, if I did it, the outcome would not be good. Therefore, I will choose not to do so.
With social media’s explosion, what someone says now, sparks reaction by the millions. What totally cracks me up is when I hear people scream, “stop talking politics on social media or I’ll unfriend you!”
I have Facebook friends of various political leanings that regularly post their views on such matters. There was a time I did it on occasion not anymore. While I occasionally respond to political posts others make, I haven’t made one on my page in over two years. The tipping point for me came in November 2014, I made a simple, honest, innocent post -- or so I thought -- to the effect of “whatever your political leanings are, exercise your right to vote.” The next thing I know, I have Facebook friends on both the right and left getting into pissing matches. It was getting vicious, like name-calling vicious. I deleted the post and from that point decided not to post anything political on social media.
In a sense, you can make a case that even though there are outspoken zealouts on both sides, there is not enough discourse because for every zealout there are cynics that avoid the topic like the plague. I’m definitely cynical when it comes to politics but I pick my spots and forums when discussing them. If you are passionate about the matter, it is your right to be that way but if you are going to post it in a public forum such as social media, just remember you are going to get blowback as well as attaboys. If you can deal with that, have at it, who am I to say you can’t or shouldn’t do it? My reason for not posting anything political on my Facebook page is not because I can’t deal with the blowback I get for my views but rather, I don’t have the time or energy to deal with the immaturity that responders to the post bring. I could unfriend them but I’m not that petty.
I have no problem with other people posting political items on their page because if I don’t like it, I don’t have to read it. As far as in person conversations, I don’t actively seek them but I take a “read the room” approach. If I’m talking to someone with dissenting views and we’re going more than 10 minutes of just rebutting viewpoints, it’s time to shut it down on that topic and move to another. The reason why a “read the room” approach is best is because for every one person you find that is willing to listen to you or even engage, there will be another that quite honestly does not want to listen to you get on your soapbox. If you encounter the latter, it’s best to take a hint.
When it comes to freedom of speech, understand that what you can do and should do are two different things. Translation, say or express at your own risk.
