THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, July 13, 1995 TAG: 9507120152
SECTION: SUFFOLK SUN PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
SOURCE: BY STEPHEN H. WALTERS
LENGTH: Medium: 74 lines
A century from now, historians likely will agree that we are living in the Information Age. Between computers and the media, practically nothing is beyond the reach of those seeking to be informed. Whether it's on-line discussion groups, Elvis sightings or the O.J. trial, we are awash in a vast sea of each others' thoughts and ideas. Technology aside, none would be possible without the basic right of free speech.
Nothing is more precious or essential to the preservation of a free society than the right to express one's self. The first amendment of the Constitution assures every citizen the right to free expression without fear of reprisal. Throughout our nation's history, though, it has been subjectively interpreted to legitimize every form of expression, including the most slanderous and foul.
Particularly virulent in modern culture is the rhetoric known as hate speech. A free society is responsible for weighing the exercise of freedom against the potential consequences.
Everybody knows you shouldn't shout ``fire'' in a crowded theater. But what about the gray areas, such as dissenting views that vent animosity toward other political or ethnic groups? For example, is the NRA within its constitutional rights to call government law enforcement officers ``jackbooted thugs'' ? Taking the First Amendment at face value, yes it is. George Bush was also within his rights to take offense to the remark. The fact that someone was offended should not preclude the right to express the viewpoint.
The boundaries of free speech have always been subjective. The issue has become hotter today because the moral restraint that undergirded the responsible use of this freedom is sorely lacking. The net result is untempered rhetoric that, when coupled with the unlimited swath of broadcast media, is sure to offend somebody somewhere. Shouting ``fire'' in a crowded theater places people in mortal danger. Neo-Nazis spewing hate rhetoric toward Jews does not.
Only if acted upon does an attitude of hate violate another's rights. Offenders then should be tried on the charges resulting from the actions, not words.
President Clinton accused talk radio hosts of cultivating an atmosphere of dissension that inspired the bombing in Oklahoma City. Talk radio didn't fill a rental truck full of explosives and park it outside the federal building or detonate the explosion that killed almost 200 people inside. Attacking the mere expression of hatred shirks the responsibility of dealing with those who act on it. Remember, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression, not behavior.
In our increasingly politically correct culture, it would appear there is a greater intolerance for words than actions. Hate speech is quickly branded as bigotry or mean spiritedness, whereas a hate crime is often met with the idea that we need to understand what drove the offender to commit the act in the first place.
We should not try to abridge free speech in the hope that it will eliminate what we don't want to hear. Universities, which were the traditional bastions of unfettered verbal exchange, are now adopting speech codes. The result is students are so afraid of offending each other and violating the code that nobody is quite sure how to say good morning. Professors are being taken to task for the content of their lectures deemed offensive to those attending.
I am not sure where this will end, but I know it must begin with individual responsibility. While, in the interest of freedom, we may have to hear hate speech, we can all hope for the day when people know better than to say it. MEMO: Mr. Walters, of Eric Court, Chesapeake, is employed by Air-A-Plane Corp.
The Sun welcomes guest commentary.
ILLUSTRATION: Photo
Stephen Walters
by CNB