1 of 34

No

Write now Article Tools

The fundamental issue at work is the concept of "Freedom of Speech" for which the central idea is articulated in the First Amendment to the Constitution. However, beyond this simple excerpt that "Congress shall make no law . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ." the issues become more complicated.

In a society, it appears that the underlying issue is not whether Congress should oppress offensive speech, but rather how society reacts to it. While there are certainly few that would argue that individuals must maintain an unbiased perspective regarding speech, there are limits to the actions one can take. The issue also becomes substantially less clear when groups or organizations become involved.

As an individual, if I disagree with a point of view, an opinion, or the speech in question, I can exercise my right to ignore or disassociate myself from it as I see fit. If some speech can be determined to be harmful to the individual then legal remedies are available for which the judicial system can make an assessment and award damages. It should also be clear that harmful is not synonymous with offensive. We may individually be offended by a variety of forms of expression; however there is no fundamental right to a legal remedy for every offense.

When an individual is not legally harmed, but merely offended, the question of whether an individual should have the "right" to escalate an issue to the point of where it does do harm, either physically, economically, or mentally, is raised. It has become a staple of news reports that when an individual says something offensive, there is an immediate attempt to deprive the individual of their livelihood and engage in a form of economic banishment for their transgression. This has given rise to the idea that merely being offended is somehow a protected right and that no effort is out of bounds when it comes to responding to offensive speech or actions. We can individually decide to not do business with someone, or to ignore them, but when we attempt to organize efforts to systematically attack someone then we have moved well beyond the point of mere offense and individual choice.

This idea runs completely counter to the intention of "Freedom of Speech" since it circumvents the legal system and attempts a form of vigilante justice against the offender, by denying "due process".

When we deal with organizations and businesses their existence is also governed by the legal system and it

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Should employers be allowed to use MySpace, YouTube and Facebook accounts as a basis for hiring or firing employees??
We want to hear your view. Write now!