Is “Free Speech” Free?

After the uproar Rush Limbaugh ignited by calling Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, a “slut” among other disparaging comments, the phrase “free speech” and its limitations has been debated by both sides of the political spectrum.

Well, in regard to “free speech,” few things are truly free and those things that are free are worth exactly what you pay for them.

Please allow me to issue a disclaimer upfront.  I am neither a lawyer nor a student of Constitutional Law. I am going to analyze this issue to provide some sort of a common sense perspective drawn from my own opinion.

Let’s examine what in fact the First Amendment does say.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In simple terms, part of the amendment grants citizens the freedom to worship God without governmental interference and assures that the government will not establish a state religion. It goes to say that if you speak out, especially while criticizing the government, that Congress can’t shut you up.

When you break it down like that, those parameters are actually pretty narrow. Too many people use the phrase “the right to free speech” as a shield to say whatever they want with total latitude. In fact, there is nothing in this provision that protects anyone engaging in public speaking  from the possible consequences of their comments from other sectors of society.

I am not for the public or individuals trying to silence people through censorship such as calling for the removal of someone from the air. That can get out of control.

With that being said, there is nothing about “free speech” that protects Rush or any commentator from alienating his audience and advertisers. This is the free market that Rush loves so much. If he sours the product and the demand dries up, he essentially censors himself. Although Rush has lost support, I do not believe that the Rush empire will crumble at this point. Even if Rush would lose half of his listenership he would still have a massive audience of millions that most radio professionals can only dream of.

There is nothing new about a man calling a woman who he disagrees with a whore. (I believe the term in this case was prostitute.) It is intended to damage her credibility and minimize her opinion. I am very disappointed that Rush stooped to the level of a tank-topped, hairy backed, beer chugging, tobacco chewing redneck. He certainly lost my respect. However, he did apologize and now it’s time to move on.

Sandra Fluke is not a helpless child. She is an adult attending law school. I am not sure what her area of legal study is but you can bet that any opposition that she may face an attorney will not spare her feelings and most certainly will not apologize for it. She threw herself in the public arena when she chose to publically speak at the hearing. When you engage in “free speech” you yourself can in turn become the subject of someone else’s “free speech.” It comes with territory.

The bottom line is that “free speech” isn’t really free; with all sorts of people gabbing there is going to be a lot of noise. Listening isn’t something we as Americans like to do. We don’t worry about our right to “free listening” do we?

The price of being able to speak freely without governmental interference is that, at times, we have to hear things from others that aren’t so cool.