When Free Speech Is Not Free

Defining where free speech ends and verbal violence begins is not easy.

Possessing pornographic images on your computer has some legal restraints. And when those images are of children, there are stronger legal consequences. Even if you claim those images are for your eyes only, tell that to TSA or to border-crossing personnel if they have a look at your laptop when you are traveling somewhere.

Defining what is acceptable sexual imagery is not easy to define. Are images of mutually consenting adults designed to arouse a person okay? What happens when the imagery exploits women and continues to maintain a social climate that defines women as secondary sexual objects? And children - do such images increase a person's leaning toward pedophilia - and to acting out on that leaning with children in a family or neighborhood?

When we turn to video games based on violent imagery, another issue of value is raised. Do such violent images glorifying war increase aggression in our gun-loving culture? Or, as some argue, do such games provide an outlet for aggressive feelings - resulting in less violence? Here, there are a different set of legalities regarding the use of such games by young children. And parents trying to enforce their standards, when a neighbor's standards differ from theirs.

After all, we live in a country that values free speech. What may be acceptable for some may be offensive to others.

When we turn to free speech and religious differences, another set of issues is immediately evident. Freedom of speech was political and religious, when a musical group used one of Moscow's churches to appeal to the Virgin Mary to free Russia from Putin. Today, the Prime Minister in Russia suggests the punk singers sentenced to two years in prison should be set free after serving six months. Even though their choice of venue and words was offensive.

The events this week in Muslim countries over a deplorable film clip begs this question:  when is free speech no longer free. Our American Ambassador in Libya and his colleagues paid with their lives because this film was spread around the world using the connectedness via the Internet. As one commentator said: countries used to authoritarian governments may find it hard to believe this film was done without any government permission.

There is so much we do not know about the events unfolding in the Middle East. Are the protesters a very small minority of people in their respective countries, people on the Islamic right and not representative of Islam as a whole? Was the attack in Libya planned and then took advantage of translation of this film into Arabic a few days before 9-11. How much distortion is present among people - both via the Internet and media and from person-to-person in countries with close-knit cultures? These are all questions we will  understand more fully as investigations search for answers to exactly what was/is happening.

But this film clip. . . I will not watch it on YouTube. I do not want to be counted as a viewer. When I read about its content, it is a despicable and unacceptable attempt to misrepresent one of the world's major religions. Think of it this way. Replace Mohammed with Jesus in a parallel "film." Unclear family of origin? A pedophile, a womanizer, a violent man? How would we react if the film had been doctored (as it was) to depict Jesus? Is this free speech?

Do we just cringe and say everyone has a right to say whatever they want, then shrug our shoulders and walk away?

For me, it does not matter how any of us feels or believes about about Islam - or about Christianity or Judaism. Yes, all of us have a right to our opinions and differences - feelings colored by our life experiences.

But when bigotry, fraud, and great distortion are used to inflame people, free speech is no longer free. And all of us bear the cost.