After my column last week, a friend emailed to let me know I'd left an important word out of an early paragraph when I was talking about rights and responsibilities. He was right, and I'm sorry.
I had written: "And while the government can't restrict your speech for the most part (though public safety is one reason it might be restricted, i.e., yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater) ..." I should have said falsely yelling fire, and unfortunately a lot of us make that mistake when using that particular example.
Even overlooking that mistaken omission, one of the usual trolls tried a "gotcha" on the website by claiming the Supreme Court, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, "in fact said yelling 'fire' is [First Amendment] protected speech."
But not quite, as pointed out by another commenter: "I hope you know you are not giving the whole truth about what Brandenburg v. Ohio concluded. ... It says speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment--unless the speech is likely to incite imminent lawless action.
"Conclusion: It is legal to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater; however, if it leads to death or injuries, you can face serious charges, such as inciting a riot or disorderly conduct. I'm sure you would probably get banned from the theater as well."
Specifically, the court held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
Which brings us to the idea of protected speech. As I said last week, you have the right to say or write pretty much whatever you want under the protection of the First Amendment, but you have to accept responsibility for your words (i.e., take the consequences), and that's true whether your speech is protected or not by the government (local, state, or federal). Symbolic speech like refusing to stand for the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem or salute the flag is government-protected speech, as is burning the flag or wearing black armbands to protest war, but non-governmental entities may still legally punish you.
Government can limit some protected speech, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, by imposing "time, place and manner" restrictions, such as requiring permits for rallies, but other than that, most speech, pure or symbolic, is free from government censorship, even unpopular speech (you might recall that the ACLU has defended free-speech rights of groups like the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis). Additionally, when government acts as educator, employer or jailer, reports Freedom Forum, K-12 public school students, government employees and people in state or federal prison can have their rights limited.
What isn't protected? As noted earlier, speech likely to incite imminent lawless action. In addition to that, Freedom Forum notes that child pornography, commercial speech, blackmail, defamation, fighting words (those "that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace"), speech intended to harm the U.S. or aid our enemies, obscenity, perjury, plagiarism, solicitation to crime, and true threats are not protected.
Social media companies have their own rules for conduct for their platforms or comment boards, and may restrict or ban your account if you violate their terms of service (TOS).
While you may think that's unfair, I'd remind you this isn't China or North Korea, and social media platforms aren't part of the government.
We should count ourselves lucky.
The same troll last week wrote after bringing up Brandenburg v. Ohio: "It should also be noted too many people confuse rights specifically guaranteed in the [C]onstitution with privileges."
I would note that too many people mistakenly believe rights guaranteed by the Constitution are unlimited. No amendment is unlimited, including the Second Amendment (per conservative jurist icon Antonin Scalia), and all come with responsibilities.
Tyler Brandt wrote in 2018 for the Foundation for Economic Education, "Liberty and responsibility are inseparable. At first glance, this might seem like a paradox due to responsibility being an inherent constraint on liberty. Responsibility is the absence of flexibility and free-flowingness. However, those who truly want liberty also want the self-responsibility entailed.
"In each person being their own master, that person also has to accept that the actions they take produce real consequences. That person then has to choose carefully what actions they take as they are the owner of the consequences. ... Having to carry the burden of consequences forces each individual to pick up their own weight and make each corner of their world a better place."
Taking responsibility does not make rights "privileges." It just means that you understand the nature of liberty and know that lack of responsibility leads to chaos.
And not the fun kind.
Assistant Editor Brenda Looper is editor of the Voices page. Email her at blooper@adgnewsroom.com. Read her blog at blooper0223.wordpress.com.