The recent uproar over the anti-Muslim film, and the on-going violence occasioned by the Danish publication (Jyllands Posten) of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed have occasioned some thoughts about Freedom of Speech. Here they are, and your comments are most welcome. Free Speech Sept. 2012 The ideal of freedom of speech has been enshrined in the U.S. way of life since the beginning. Some even argue that it was a driving force for those who settled from Europe where people were sometimes persecuted for voicing their opinions on sensitive matters. So our forefathers fought and died in part over the principle that anyone could voice any opinion, however contrary or disruptive to the established view of the majority. The principle is embodied in Amendment 1 of the Constitution (Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.. first introduced to Congress in 1789.) In consequence we have all sorts of opinions making their way across the country, sometime by airwaves, sometimes by newspaper, often by Internet. Our heralded diversity includes those who believe in the immanence of the second coming, conspiracy theories of many sort, the reality of Bigfoot, flying saucers, and ghosts, and numerous versions of racial prejudice. All are granted their right to speak out without fear of legal prosecution. Surely, however, there are limits, if not of law, then of propriety. One simply does not speak up in praise of Hitler in a Jewish Synagogue. One needs to consider the consequences of ones speech on others, not simply the desire to express ones opinions. The editors of the Danish newspaper that published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed still struggle with that insight: their exercise of freedom of the press violated no legal strictures, but brought considerable financial loss and suffering to Danes living and working in Muslim countries. Where does the freedom end? Perhaps there are some common sense guidelines. One may be free to walk wherever one pleases, but when there are poisonous snakes or alligators on the path, one limits ones choices. One may be free to pick the foliage in the forest, but if it is poison oak, one elects to leave it alone. And one does so without blaming the snakes or the gators or the poison oak theyre just acting the way they are. Its in our best interest to keep out of their way. This principle is enshrined in the Harry Potter books with the slogan of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry: Draco Dormiens Nunquam Tittilandus. (Never tickle a sleeping dragon.) One may be free to tickle, but it is certainly unwise to exercise that right on a dragon in repose. Now the Danish publishers of Jyllands Posten and the makers of the recent film, both obviously anti-Muslim, are quite free to their opinions, and have violated no law in their work. But they have occasioned a great amount of violence and suffering that could have been both anticipated and avoided. And both, it seems, fear for their lives. That may be the key point. Our forefathers were willing to fight and die for their freedom. Current practitioners seem outraged when their freedom occasions threats and violence. Maybe they are not as committed as theyd like us to believe. This is not to suggest that Muslims resemble dragons or snakes or alligators or poison oak, but it is certainly to acknowledge their sensitivity about criticisms of the Prophet. Certain things in that culture are taboo, and the taboo extends beyond members of their religion. Propriety demands that the taboo be respected. The alternative is to face the consequences. In a global society, one needs to consider sensitivities of many potential audiences before expressing controversial opinions. This is not to say one must compromise ones principles or alter ones opinions. But it is to say that one needs to be willing to take responsibility for the outcome of ones pronouncements. Freedom without responsibility is quite limited. Of course free speech does have limits and controls, even in the West. Child pornography is illegal and blocked from the Internet and from publication. It seems that the public is unwilling to tolerate some types of expression that cross the boundaries. The question becomes where to set those bounds. It seems like free expressions of opinion that occasion physical harm to others might also be a candidate for banning. That is a slippery slope, but one that needs exploring. We have no trouble with the principle that Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins. Might that not also apply to statements that insult, demean or otherwise vilify other people? John