Freedom of Speech...

Almost every day we hear some rant about freedom of speech, but it is clear, from some of the rants, that many people have no concept what freedom of speech means. And certainly the supreme Court, with its bevy of bizarre decisions in past decades, has not clarified things one iota.

Today while I was in a store, someone removed from my car a magnetic sign, one of those ribbons that says "God Bless the USA". Now, putting it on my car was an exercise of my own freedom of speech, and no doubt, there are some who would contend that removing it (since I was shopping in Santa Cruz) was an expression of that person's freedom of speech. But that is utterly wrong.

When I purchased the sign for my car, I was engaging in commerce, giving payment to a shopkeeper from something I wished to own. That sign became my property. When someone stripped that sign from my car, that was an act of theft, or vandalism, or both. It had nothing whatever to do with free speech. But in the People's Republic of Santa Cruz (a nuclear-free zone, as declared by the city council), property is, at best, a slippery concept, and is given little more than lip-service by many of the residents (except for the protection of their own property, of course.)

On a larger scale, we have heard complaints from some in Hollywood that people have tried to repress their own right to speak, through boycotts, or threatened boycotts of their films. Let's review. When actors or actresses decide to make public statements of their own political views, they are exercising their freedom of speech. And when money-paying moviegoers elect to spend their money on the films of other actors or actresses, having decided not to spend on the films of people with whose views they disagree, that, too, is an exercise of freedom of speech.

It seems to confuse many people, but freedom of speech comes at a price. That is, we are free to say whatever we want (except where it might violate public safety, incite to riot, etc.), but having said it, we may find that some members of our audience take exception, and may in turn decide to exercise their own freedom of speech, in a way that may be bad for our level of income. In particular, when an actor makes some speech that we find offensive (see, for example, Sean Penn) we are free to decide never to contibute again to his livelihood. That's also freedom of speech.

Another point of confusion for many is that the 1st Amendment, in granting freedom of speech, did not provide for a venue, nor for an audience. That is, you are free to speak, but others are free to listen, or not. And to secure a venue, you may have to pay someone, so that you can exercise your freedom, as when someone elects to rent a hall, for example. But it may come to pass that no one chooses to attend, whether the event is free or bears a ticket price.

Freedom of speech seems such a simple concept, but in our age of entitlements, it is so broadly misunderstood.