Freedom of Speech and What It Really Means

Don Imus, radio "shock jock", has recently gotten in trouble for his racist remarks regarding the Rutgers women's basketball team. Although this is not his first offensive set of statements made (see here), these remarks have certainly garnered him the most negative attention. Moreover, they have led to some punishments by his employers as well as forced him to recant, apologize, and do the usual mea culpa walk.

What I have found particularly interesting has been the ensuing discussion about "freedom of speech". I find this rather odd because, if any of the idiots talking about freedom of speech actually knew what they were talking about, they wouldn't have raised it in the first place. The 1st Amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech". As Congress has yet to weigh in on Imus or try to pass a law regarding his kind of speech, I see no relationship between the freedom of speech discussions and Imus's comments.

I have read several columns in which the writer starts off by saying that they believe in free speech. Then, depending on the writer's eventual conclusion, they argue that Imus is free to say whatever he wants and should (not) be fired. That both sides of the debate cite free speech and support free speech should make it clear that the issue of the freedom of speech has nothing to do with this debate as to whether he should be fired.

Case in point: A column by Michael Meyers appearing in the Washington Post. In this column, Meyers argues that those who want Imus fired or want the advertisers to pull their support are wrong and are violating our "free speech culture". I'm not going to argue as to whether Imus should be fired, but I take strong issue with the idea that Imus should not fired because we have freedom of speech in this country. This freedom is merely freedom from the government's ability to restrict my (or your) speech. The 1st Amendment does not, however, in any way, demand that a business permit any and all speech (when its business is, of course, speech). Or, for that matter, that a company could not pull its advertisements for a show that it finds offensive. Or, for that matter, that people can't call for someone else to be fired or for advertisers to pull their support.

Meyers calls those he disagrees with censorious pressure groups. However, the groups cannot be censorious as they do not actually control the airwaves. If any of these groups call for FCC action (as Meyers asserts Al Sharpton is doing), then I would disagree with that course of action. However, I have yet to read anyone's opinions calling for that.

In fact, what makes freedom of speech work in this country so well (and much better than countries like Britain and France, where there are restrictions on speech and yet where they have serious racism problems that racial issues look simple and easy in comparison) is that, when we hear speech we don't like, we can work to end such speech. I don't mean that in some 1984 manner. Rather, I mean that we can use the powers of the marketplace and mass opinion to force change.

The logic (or illogic) of Meyers's argument is that, if someone is not allowed to broadcast their messages over the radio, that person's "freedom of speech" has been violated and their thoughts have been censored. I assume, therefore, that this means that my freedom of speech has been violated, as I do not have a radio show. It seems that Meyers believes not only are we all allowed to have our soapbox for us to proclaim our ideas, but that we all are entitled to a business providing that soapbox for us. This is absolutely absurd, and I'm getting really tired of people's defense of others' statements being centered on free speech. Freedom of speech only works as a defense when the government is trying to restrict it. The people are free to work their own power through whatever (legal) means excluding the government they want.