Topic: The importance of compassionate behavior in the exercise of free speech.
Tim Sattler’s essay:
Webster Dictionary defines compassion as sympathetic concern for the suffering of another. Do you display sympathetic behavior towards others, are you compassionate, or are you ill-mannered, rude and uncivil? As my government teacher said, “Your rights end where another person’s begin,” which includes your right of free speech. Meaning, your free speech stops when it begins to affect another person’s rights.
In my local newspapers writers are often nasty and uncompassionate in their letters to the editor. The writers, members of my community, come across as self-centered, egotistic people that are out there strictly to get the other person. I recently have read phrases such as “I wanted to vomit when I read you letter” and “You must be some very selfish people.” These are in fact selfish words themselves that directly attack the other person. There is no reason to offend and hurt others when presenting your own viewpoint or disagreeing with them. Phrases like “I wish to take respectful exception to a letter…” show compassion and respect for that person and their opinion. My father says “you can be tough on issues and easy on people.”
Unfortunately, celebrities and leaders in positions of greater power then ourselves exercise unruly “free speech” way too often. In addition to directly harming the people the comments are directed at, their speech affects the rest of America as well. In cases involving Don Imus, Donald Trump, and Rosie O’Donald, viewers and listeners alike are influenced by demeaning, prejudiced, and unsympathetic free speech that is all too common. We continue to watch or listen people like these, and in doing so, are supporting and approving of these uncivil and cruel speeches. By doing so, we set a bad example for those around us.
If in public discourse you can agree to disagree and exercise compassion in free speech, you will earn the respect of others around you. Our Congress up until the 1970’s knew how to not attack a person in order to make a point. As leaders of America, they set a proper example by disagreeing about each other’s ideas instead of criticizing each other. Compassionate behavior in free speech is key to a better society that is compassionate and caring, not egotistic and uncivil.
Amelia Lupinetti’s essay:
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” This right, safeguarding citizens’ ability to voice their opinions, was deemed so fundamental to our government that James Madison and the Founding Fathers made it the first item in the Bill of Rights. Today, as we live in a time of international tension and security concerns, the ability to say what we believe even if it is politically unpopular is critical to the functioning of our democracy. Therefore, we must be cautious of efforts to limit or censure criticism of public policy, or to attack people who say things with which we disagree.
However, this does not mean that we should expect to be immune from disapproval for what say. The First Amendment limits government limitations on our freedom of speech. It is here that we encounter the tension between our obligation to speak out on important issues, even to people who disagree strongly, and our desire not to alienate the people who hear us. Yet this tension can be resolved, if we remember to speak our minds while being compassionate to the feelings of others.
The best illustration of the absence of such compassion is the highly publicized recent incident regarding the remarks of radio talk show host Don Imus. On, his April 4th broadcast, Imus decided to discuss the NCAA women’s basketball championship that occurred the preceding night between Tennessee and Rutgers. Rather than discussing anything concerning the game, Imus spoke about the appearance of the two basketball teams and noted his distaste for the tattoos of the women on the Rutgers team. He ended his discussion by referring to the women as, “nappy-headed hoes.”
Imus was entitled to voice his opinion, but it is hard to support him for choosing to make these remarks. They lacked any apparent justification and failed to accomplish anything other than offending these girls and their families. Worse, they were not aimed at public figures who can defend themselves, but young women, who had done nothing but play their sport at a top level. MSNBC was embarrassed by his comment and the horrible media coverage that they were receiving as a result of it. They ultimately decided that it was in the best interest of the company to drop Don Imus’s program out of kindness for the Rutgers families.
At the same time of the Imus incident, the country finds itself fighting an unpopular war in Iraq. As the number of military fatalities rises into the thousands with no evident progress in the region and no definitive date for the soldiers’ return, many people have spoken out against the war. It is as crucial for individuals to voice their opposition to government policies that lead to war as it is for them to speak out in support. Our belief in the First Amendment is founded on the idea that we need to hear all arguments on critical questions affecting our nation. However, those who do comment on the war in Iraq must keep in mind the feelings of families who have a son or daughter in the military. There are numerous individuals from Warwick currently fighting in Iraq, and the parents of these soldiers live in constant fear for the safety of their children. If opponents of the war keep in mind the considerable anxiety that families are experiencing when they speak out, they will moderate their remarks and avoid making offensive statements. Rather than saying that the soldiers’ lives were “wasted”, one could simply say that they disagree with the justification and necessity for the war and that they want the soldiers to return home as soon as possible. In this manner, a speaker is still able to get across a message, but in a manner that does not directly inflict pain upon another.
In the end, the overall message is not complicated, nor is it difficult to understand. We have duties as citizens of this country to speak out on public matters, but we must simply consider how our words can hurt, and do our best to avoid injury that we need not inflict.