Contact Us      
         Join today or login
You are using an outdated version. Writing will not be shown properly in many cases. Click here to use the current version.

Status

New Here?
Sign Up
Fast! Three Questions.

Already a member?
Login


Contests

80 Word Flash Fiction
Deadline: In 3 Days

Rhyming Poem
Deadline: In 5 Days

Loop Poetry Contest
Deadline: Apr 12th

Haiku
Deadline: Apr 15th

Dribble Flash Fiction
Deadline: Apr 20th


Rank

Poet: None
Author: None
Novel: None
Reviewer:None
Votes: None





 Category:  Commentary and Philosophy Non-Fiction
  Posted: October 29, 2018      Views: 77

Print It
Save to Bookcase
View Reviews
Rate This
Make Reader Pick
Promote This


 ABOUT
LANCE POLIN 

Faceless yet voidless, with no form that can ever stop trying to grow. Some may call this survival instinct viral, or parasitic. Yet it is the only way to keep moving on . . .

Portfolio | Become A Fan
Warning: The author has noted that this contains the highest level of violence.
Warning: The author has noted that this contains the highest level of language.
Exceptional
This work has reached the exceptional level
In trying times, should free speech be limited?
"On the Limits of Free Speech" by Lance Polin

"On the Limits of Free Speech"

Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words cause permanent damage
--Eric Bogosian and Oliver Stone, from Talk Radio

Sometimes free speech is an act of war. Words can be used to destroy other people, to destroy the value of things. And those employing language in this way are certainly terrible people. They want to hurt, they choose to diminish, it is their preference to insult and attack and utterly annihilate whatever their target may be. And you know what? They have every right to do this.

Despite the vagueness of the title and my general desire to remain outside of the topics I choose to discuss, this is one where I cannot help myself. Oh, there will still be a historical examples of the central topic, but I feel the need to be completely open, like when a newscaster reporting a story explains before they speak that they work for the corporation they are saying is being investigated.

I have called myself, politically, a detached anarchist. It has been my notion and my intellectual desire to try and understand points-of-view not shared by me. This is the best way for one to understand the hows and the whys of the world and its conflicts. And sometimes people blame freedom of speech. They want to limit it. They have decided to outlaw words because they are (genuinely) offensive. It is an attempt to legislate thinking, which will always fail. Banning free expression is the easiest way to stoke resentment, to promote the actual hatred that the basic idea was seeking to depose.

The one issue, of all the issues I believe is something to be fought for no matter what, is freedom of speech. That includes protections for Nazis and scare-mongers and Devil worshipers and even those lost souls who wish death and destruction upon the world. As I said, attempts to understand opposing viewpoints can take the mysticism away from such hatefulness. If we can learn why a group of teenagers bully a lonely girl or boy and try to talk them into killing themselves, we can use the same free speech to liberate them.

When I was a teacher--high school, English, at terrible schools in a big east coast USA city--I used to let my students say whatever they wanted. I would encourage them to be themselves and find their voices in their writing. I told them to understand what they believed in and to express it however they saw fit. I said, "I don't care if you write that this book is the worst piece of shit you've ever come close to reading. That is a valid critical response. You just need to tell me why." And they did. Nearly all of them did. It cut through the idea of a teacher's pet and forced them all to be completely honest. There were no limits. There was no sniveling or pleading. "Say whatever the fuck you want," I said.

The effect was surprising, and there was a much different atmosphere in my classroom compared to the world of restrictions they entered into when they walked outside the door. We were a room of cooperation, of team work, as well as the class most likely to have fights break out in.

Some of the teachers I worked with had a very strict idea of education. They were stiff and prudish. They thought that they were teaching ethics and morality but did not understand contemporary youth culture, so they simply bored them. They would teach history of only the good stuff, a highlight reel, along with happy messages of how far we've come since the bad old days. They would denounce their music (often a fair thing to do--kids usually have terrible taste in music), they condescendingly would correct grammar at any given turn, and the worst thing one could do is swear. The administrations usually agreed with this, going so far, sometimes, to suspend students who let a word slip out when they were angry.

It was a losing battle, I knew. They could not offend me and the idea was that by taking away speech restrictions, some of the magic would wear off and these words could be just other nouns, adjectives and verbs. It was a lesson on the value of America. One student even asked me if it was possible to make a sentence only of curse words. I tried: "Fucking fuckers fucking fuck." Then I said, "It's a terrible sentence, but at least you can pull a general meaning from it."

In the classroom the whole idea petered out. Nothing could offend anyone, I believed. But of course I was wrong. I had forgotten one of the main tenets of childhood, that kids can be very cruel. Also that kids are stupid sometimes, that they often lack self-control (we live in a world of children these days, don't we?) The freedom I believed in was not the freedom of the real world. When the students allowed my classroom rules to slip out into their other classes, and in the hallway, and when speaking to the principal, things got pretty hot for me. I was correctly blamed for creating an atmosphere of joyous anarchy, and the impact on everyone was the inevitable: free speech was challenged and the challenge won.

One of my most gifted students was applying to the top school in the district, an elite academy for the best of the best. He belonged there. I have no problem admitting that he was much smarter than me. He was a brilliant writer, using very advanced methods to make his points: circular logic, stream-of-consciousness, and a vocabulary that could put most people to shame. Oh, and I should add that he had moved to the US from China two years before. He spoke with no discernible accent. He was fluent in seven languages. His average in my class was 107%.

So this kid went to his interview. He was going to be the pride of our school. I was certain that he would breeze through Yale or someplace like that. And then he reached the limits of free speech.

The boy sat there writing in his notebook while waiting his turn to be assessed. What he was writing were harshly negative observations on the characteristics of the three people doing the interviewing. This commentary was absolutely free. He told me later that I had inspired him. He told my principal this. He told the regional superintendent. I came close to losing my job.

What happened was that they asked him what he was so furiously writing in his notebook. Now he could have said it was just a personal journal, or a diary, but he was a very honest kid. He asked them if they wanted him to read it. When they said yes we were all suddenly in trouble. He had ripped so deeply into these people that there is no doubt half of what he said was actually true.

Of course he didn't get into the school and there was the end of my classroom experiment. I was ordered by my principal (who was scolded by her bosses over the incident) to stop letting the kids swear. I had a talk with all of them, in every class, telling them what I was told and then surreptitiously looking at the door and whispering, "So we have to keep it quiet. No one sees your papers other than me. Just stop saying it out loud--especially when she comes in to watch me teach, which I suspect will be often. You guys will get me fired."

Now this, in many ways, was a challenge to the students who bought into my style of teaching, yet still did not like me. But I had enough loyal kids in the room who listened to me that that kid--a trouble-maker in every class-- could easily be written off as an asshole trying to offend everyone. There are limits to free speech in school. School is not a democracy. It is a parliamentary dictatorship.

I have never thought that there is such a thing as a bad word. What we all really need to learn is context. Every word can be acceptable given specific contexts, screaming "Fuck!" when you slam your finger in a door, or calling someone an asshole after they crash into your car. These are understandable moments when words may otherwise fail you. You can stammer in frustration or just mutter "shit." Shit can sum up certain situations very nicely.

For a quick historic example of how free speech comes and goes in society let us turn to the French Revolution. Before the revolution it was a crime to insult the king or members of the royal family, or anyone these fancy people believed above the rabble. People were throw into dank underground prisons, or marched right up to the guillotine if they said something offensive. These were angry revolutionaries that the King wanted to quell.

It was a bad time in France then, the division between the rich and the poor so profound that the foolish queen once told the people that they should eat cake and stop worrying about starvation. Of course cake was more expensive than bread and most of them could not afford bread. This led to an increase in crime (look to Les Miserables, the great novel, or even the musical for a tale of this crime: https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?isbn=9780451525260&n=100121503&cm_sp=mbc-_-ISBN-_-used).

With crime on the rise and chaos reigning everywhere, the people were desperate to be heard. A bitter rage overwhelmed France, and the king and queen were eventually captured and put to death. People sang in the streets for four years, everything legal, no restrictions on anything. It was a joyous, lawless society.

And then came a period of time that has gone down to history as The Terrors (https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?isbn=9780312352240&n=100121503&cm_sp=mbc-_-ISBN-_-used). This was wholesale slaughter, the new rulers taking charge and demanding loyalty and submissiveness from the citizens, was random and wide-spread. They outlawed religion and had both atheistic dances and Satanic rituals, complete with human sacrifice, mocking statues of saints, trying their best to offend everyone. And they put in place new laws. The punishment for praying was death. The punishment for modesty was rape. The punishment for speaking out was torture. The punishment for living was being trapped in France, scared, uncertain of what horror the next day might bring.

Free speech is the most important right a person has in free society. It is the permission to say whatever the fuck it is that you want, no matter how hurtful or insane. There is a reason the founders of America put freedom of speech, religion, the press and the right to assemble and protest first. Everything else, all freedoms, are an extension of this right. What the first amendment really grants is the right to be an asshole.

So we can say whatever we want to anyone. And they can say anything back. Sometimes this leads to violence. At times it can even start a war. But these are our deepest and truest rights if we wish to live in a free society. Trying to impose restrictions on words and ideas that may hurt someone's feelings are not a balm to passionate anger and self-justifying hatred. Those things will never go away. And if we wait for the next revolution to take care of these problems and watch the world as we know it slip away just because someone upset you, then the only thing we have to look forward to is tyranny.

Author Notes
Lance Polin is usually pretty moderate in his personal politics, but he is a fanatic in favor of freedom of speech. He is not a 'constitutionalist' in the current, right-wing sense of the term, nor is he a left-wing whiner desperate to have his voice heard, demanding things from people, refusing to let them get away with being who they are. This piece is very personal to him, a lot of autobiography, I suppose, mixed in with my usual book learning and cruel analysis of the state of the world.
Pays one point and 2 member cents.

Share or Bookmark
Print It Save to Bookcase View Reviews Make Reader Pick Promote This
© Copyright 2016. Lance Polin All rights reserved.
Lance Polin has granted FanStory.com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.

You need to login or register to write reviews.

It's quick! We only ask four questions to new members.

Interested in posting your own writing online? Click here to find out more.



Write a story or poem and submit your work to receive reviews on your writing. Publish short stories on our book writing site and enter the monthly contests. Guaranteed reviews for everything you write and you will be ranked. Information.


  Contact Us

© 2016 FanStory.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Statement