What vs. how we speak

Some limitations should exist for free speech. The popular but dated example is yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Another good example is inciting violence. I am open to limiting what people say if their words can be a legitimate threat to others. In most cases, however, what we say should be irrelevant to the free speech discussion.


If we start regulating speech based off of such things as being offensive, we have gone too far. No matter how disgusting words can be, we should not prohibit such dialog. There is a simple reason for this. This is a concept that can easily be abused. It can emerge as a belief that anyone who deviates from your perspective should lack the right to speak his or her mind.

Although both political parties have been guilty of this problem, the Democrats have gone absolutely out of control in regards to changing their views on freedom of speech depending on the words being used. Freedom of speech should be more about when and how people speak their minds, not our personal views on the words. If you believe that someone should be fired for saying something controversial on the conservative side of the political spectrum, you should also support the idea that a controversial statement from a liberal should result in termination.

I feel that there should be more flexibility in restricting how people make a statement than what is being said. If you say something while representing your employer, for example, that employer should not be obligated to continue to pay you for the harm you are causing. If you are away from your job, your employer should not try to control your life. Of course, businesses should be consistent in their policies regardless of their employees' beliefs. They have no right to dictate what their employees are allowed to think.

I should also point out that businesses should have more leeway than the government in regards to freedom of speech. It's not always easy to prove the cause of termination. In some cases, there may also be legitimate business reasons for certain words to be addressed, such as dealing with a boycott. Since I am writing all of this from an ethical rather than legal perspective, I prefer to give businesses the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what they are thinking nearly as well as they do. Even so, I will call out businesses if I am convinced that they crossed a line. Considering how frequent it has become for businesses to cite speech as cause for high-profile terminations, I have plenty of examples that I will be able to present.