We do not value anything as much as we value freedom; it is really the thing that fulfills all the deep desires defining who we are and what we want. The more freedom granted to a society, the more developed and prosperous that society is likely to become. Individually speaking, we can notice that we are likely to achieve anything that we willingly choose; on the contrary, when we are forced to do what we do not genuinely believe in, we usually fail to accomplish the required tasks. Nevertheless, that freedom must be restricted; we actually have no absolute freedom. In fact, total freedom exists only in the forests.
Freedom of speech is a kind of freedom that we really enjoy. We have the freedom to discuss any topic of our choice, to debate it, and to elaborate on it. We proudly enjoy the freedom of choosing arguments, formulating rules governing our discussions, and selecting the media through which arguments are presented.
The diversity of opinions about any given topic is the core of the freedom we relish; otherwise, our opinions would be of less value if everyone had the very point of view that we have. What we argue for or against is a controversial issue. You have your opinions on a certain topic, and I have my own standpoint. You present your argument, and I present mine; your wits, thoughts, and persuasive tactics are against mine. We meet, sit, and have our discussion. I know, for sure, that you want me to be convinced of your point of view, and my intentions are identically similar, to persuade you of what I believe in. Later, we smile, shake hands, and depart; you still have your own opinions, and I remain committed to my beliefs.
This is the lovely scenario that all kinds of disagreements should follow; if not, other uncivilized methods would occur. When we resort to barbarous means to settle our difference in opinions, freedom is considered dead. It no longer exists; what prevails then is an ugly, backward, and mean dictatorship.
The previous part was to illustrate what we should have to coexist together regardless of our disagreement. Now, I need to elaborate on the question of how much freedom is required to encompass all opinions; what are the limits, if any, on our freely expressing ideas and thoughts? How can we achieve the joy of experiencing freedom? When is my opinion considered offensive and no longer a manifestation of thought?
From my perspective, limits promote freedom. When we set out limits, we acknowledge the right for everyone of us to exist. We do not live alone on this planet; we live together, and the word “together” signifies the diversity that we should really appreciate. Everything around us in this wide world is diverse, and we would not bear life, had the world been but one thing. The whole world calls for such variation.
Sometimes, however, some people tend to neglect all these values to which we all agree. In a recent case, Albert Snyder is suing the Hillsboro Baptist Church. This case is all about the vague boundary that separates the freedom of speech as a right from denigration. Whether I agree with the Church or Snyder is not the issue discussed here; the question is whether the demonstration which the Church held at the Snyder's funeral of his son belongs to freedom of speech or denigration. To perceive the situation fully, we need to put ourselves in Snyder's shoes. The man is in his son's funeral; many loud cries such as “pray for more dead soldiers,” “thank God for 9/11,” “fangs die, God laughs.”
These signs evoke disgust and hatred to the nation which has bestowed freedom of speech upon them. Always showing up at similar funerals, they think those phrases they shout would change the world. They are not; indeed, those hateful shouts would make people sympathize with the families of the dead and hate the Church.
Frankly, I can see no difference between this Church and AlQaeda. The claims, the hateful expressions, and the dwelling upon the people's distress are the same. If they are to protest against particular issues, they should address their complaints and concerns to the appropriate authority. Showing up in funerals to harass the families, who have nothing to do with whatever that member has chosen for himself or herself, is not sane in any way.
What they are doing is nothing but adding insult to injury; that can never be the freedom of speech that is granted by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment