The right to offend - uniquely American?

In a series of NY Times articles about how the American legal system is unique compared to other countries', our First Amendment right which allows free speech, including speech that offends, is discussed. As the article explains, it is "uniquely American" to allow such freedom of speech, as long as it falls short of the imminent (unlawful action) requirement, not only in conversations but in magazines and newspapers.

The laws reflect our culture, however, and in 2008 there are some who are calling out for limits against free speech. Some say that the time has come to rein in the speech of those who insult other groups or who print offensive material under the rubric of free speech.

This raises an interesting question since at debates I've attended about free speech, I've learned that opinions vary, depending on the facts and hypotheticals given. For example, if you gave a hypothetical involving offensive speech toward Group A to members of Group A, they might very well agree that such speech should be banned. But if you change that hypothetical to something members of Group A routinely write or say about members of Group B, Group A realizes the profound effect that limiting free speech would have in their public discourse. This affects religious groups in a myriad of ways. (Although we can debate whether it would be a more civilized society, as some might say, I can't help but recall the silent streets of those countries where government not only silences speech, but regulates movement of its citizens to the point that they require a permit to leave their own town, such as in North Korea.)

Studying the way other countries govern is a good starting point when considering a change to our constitution. Countries whose government may be seen at the other end of the spectrum from a democracy are definitely worth learning about. Why? Because even in democracies, it's easy for government to enact changes that can erode the rights of people. And one of the ways that can be done, other than through legislation, is through court decisions, some of which deal with interpreting our rights under the constitution.

This may seem off topic for my blog, but it's not. Those who are interested in disability advocacy and inclusion would benefit from reading about legislative changes and court decisions that affect laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is also important to realize the effect that changing constitutional laws such as the First Amendment would have in our everyday lives, even for those of us who blog about religion. We have to think through many hypothetical situations, inserting fact after fact, before we should be willing to relinquish any of our rights or even back new legislation.

It's easy to take for granted our right to speak out and speak up and even though it can be discouraging to feel as if we're not heard, it's important to remember that we're light years ahead of countries where what we say could be judged as offensive - and banned.