Rights, freedom come with responsibilities
To the editor:
Plato observed that “the youth are easily inflamed with wild notions.” Today, one notion lost amid the passions inflaming both young and old is this: rights come with responsibilities.
As my high school history teacher liked to say, your right to swing your elbow ends where my nose begins. One of the clearest judicial expressions of this principle in the realm of free speech came from Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). Writing for a unanimous Court, Murphy held that certain speech falls outside First Amendment protection — specifically, “fighting words” that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. He continued: “such expressions do not contribute to the exposition of ideas or possess social value in the search for truth.” Since 1942 the way people get information has changed. Hearing or seeing things recorded earlier can spur someone to travel across the country and act violently weeks later. By 2003, SCOTUS recognized the need to drop “immediate” and focus on intent. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (Virginia v Black 2003) wrote: speech intended to vilify or incite against a specific individual or group causing fear in that group, is not protected speech.
We live in an era in which rights are too often divorced from responsibilities. This separation encourages the belief that all speech, no matter how inflammatory or false, is a fundamental right. In the 1990s my internet access was shutdown when my teenagers typed three obscene words. Today, videos, speeches, posts, et cetera, designed to incite against specific targets or groups are rampant. It is time for the pendulum to swing back. It is time to recognize that speech targeted at specific individuals or groups with language that has the potential to incite violence is not acceptable. If you can’t make your point without distortion, vilification and targeting, it is probably not a valid or useful point. Like pornography, it may be difficult to define, but we know incitement when we see it. Such speech is not a way to express new ideas, it is propaganda intended to incite. Thoughtful citizens should recognize personal attacks are not a sign of strength, but a sign that the attacker lacks solutions.
The “No Kings” movement, backed by partisan funding, exemplifies this problem. Unified largely by opposition to President Donald Trump and full of demonstrably false vilification, it offers little in the way of constructive alternatives. Iran’s aggression and nuclear aspirations, the rise in antisemitic violence and loss of faith in government agencies are among the serious challenges our country faces. Rather than debate, there is a reliance on distortion, personal attacks, and rhetoric designed to inflame in order to gain votes and power.
This stretches beyond the intent of the free speech protections of the First Amendment. It is time to recognize the harm caused by gross distortions meant to rally people to donate, vote or get “clicks.” Statements that when filtered through a twisted mind can lead to violence. As Justice Murphy implied, good ideas should be expressed in ways to improve our understanding of better solutions, not to incite.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution believed the role of a just government includes protecting people’s individual inherent rights. This makes it the government’s job to prevent one group from silencing another. Hecklers and others that disrupt lectures should not be allowed. Another threat to freedom was found in the “Twitter Files.” No Kings protesters truly concerned about free speech should open their minds to the facts. Uncovered in 2022, congressional investigations began in January 2023 and a review of those files led to a 2026 settlement with the courts finding that the Biden administration, acting like an authoritarian king, had indeed exerted “substantial coercive pressure” to silence disfavored views.
The First Amendment right to peaceful protest must also be protected. Just as lecture halls need aggressive protection, so do peaceful protesters. We saw this failure in 2017 at Charlottesville. As an independent review criticized the police department, with former U.S. Attorney Tim Heaphy saying the police were standing by during fights and lacking a clear plan to handle the white nationalist rally, which included groups known to be violent, knowing it would be met with a counter-protest, which also included groups known to be violent. Disagreement and peaceful public demonstration are American traditions; police allowing people in groups known to be violent to disrupt them is not what the Framers had in mind.
That said, everyone would do well to use the upcoming months to search for truth. By November, I hope people will have examined the record and considered concrete examples. Sanctuary policies that shield convicted criminals from federal immigration authorities do not make our country safer or stronger, nor do the funders of campus antisemitism. Those who prefer to leave the evil of Iran intact because they don’t want to see President Trump’s policy win are not people who should lead our country. Running on the promise to impeach the president will not solve our problems.
True progress requires more than outrage and slogans. It demands a recommitment to the linked principles of rights and responsibilities, starting with a reevaluation of what should be done to limit inaccurate, distorted speech designed to incite outrage which lead to violence. It demands truth seeking over tribal attacks and ideas that actually strengthen justice, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness for all.
Michael Raab
Sanibel