What is Definition of “Responsible Speech”?

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, April 15, 2010

When our founding fathers met during those late summer days of 1787 to construct the document that would guide the growth and maturity of our infant nation, they were very careful to follow some stringent guidelines. They admitted the task before them would be difficult and heretofore unaccomplished by any other group of human engineers. They realized they were drawing a map of uncharted territory. The idea that a government could exist with its powers granted not by its military subjugation of a people or by its monarchical lineage, but solely by the consent of its governed populace was truly a unique and foreign idea.

The beauty of the preamble to that document, and the efficient use of powerful verbiage in the Amendments that were added two years later in December of 1791, show us that the men who met in those days were divinely guided and assisted in that endeavor. I think all of us will agree that our Constitution and the Bill of Rights are unequaled among any other civilization’s charters of organization.

It is therefore troubling to me when I hear our chief executive say that the free speech of two of our citizens is “troublesome” to him. I speak, of course of the response by President Obama to a question put to him during a recent interview on CBS. When asked about the current climate of discontent that seems (to the mainstream press, anyway) to be unprecedented and without cause, Obama replied with the proper nouns of two of the most vocal and well-paid critics he has. He mentioned Rush Limbaugh, a very successful and well-compensated radio talk show host who is enjoying the revenues generated by several willing advertisers, and a cable TV personality by the name of Glenn Beck, who also shares in the comfortable lifestyle due to the advertisers who willingly add their signature to the checks that go to keep his show on the air.

Now, we all know that Mr. Obama is not the first president who has had his critics. In fact, our first president, who, by the way, happened to be the first white president, had his critics also. He had several people who published unsavory things about him and some who stood on the street corners of Philadelphia and mocked his capabilities and questioned his decisions, yet he added his name to the very document that guaranteed those people would not have that free speech denied.

Today, we see and hear many people who agree with Obama that people like Limbaugh and Beck are “troublesome”. They like to cite the difference between free speech and responsible speech. As we were all taught in civics class, we have the right to talk about anything we want but we have certain responsibilities that we must adhere to. For example, I can speak about the dangers of fire and tell you how to be careful with woodstoves and fireplaces and in doing so, I would use the word “fire” in several ways and in several contexts, but if I shouted the word “fire!” in a crowded theater in which only one door was available for exit and no fire existed, obviously I would be held liable for the injuries and/or deaths that occurred. That would definitely be “troublesome” speech and would be beyond the realms of responsible speech.

However, if I spoke about political subjects and if my political views caused people to become stimulated to the point of action, would I be crossing the line between responsible and irresponsible speech? In other words, if political speech is coupled with emotional catch words and phrases that spark a response in the listeners, much like the shouted “fire!”, am I still being responsible?

Some critics of Limbaugh and Beck think that they have overstepped that boundary and therefore their speech must be somehow regulated or at least stifled. My contention with that argument is that any regulation of their speech would be a regulation of all manners of speech and any stifling of Limbaugh would be a stifling of us all.

In other words, I am no fan of Keith Olbermann and I find many of his rants and diatribes to be “troublesome” to me. For example, when he paints the entire Tea Party movement as a racist enterprise he is casting aspersions upon me and many people I respect, yet I have no desire to see him stifled, his dismal ratings should work to stifle him soon enough.

To those who think that the rhetoric of Limbaugh is “troublesome” I would encourage them to take the few minutes to search out the speeches of men like Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere and others who spoke with great passion and emotion, and yes even some derisive and insulting comments, about the former King of England. They are the men who knew that all liberties were granted by a beneficent Creator and if one is squelched then none are safe.

I would also say, find an audience and speak out. Put your rhetoric up against theirs in the free market and see to whom the listeners turn and to whom the advertisers pay. Oh yeah, I forgot, you already tried that, it was called Air America.