Freedom is Not Free!

     We so often talk about things being free to acess or free to do. And often these "freebies" are viewed as cheap or we forget, or don't realize, who has or is paying for them and that there are rules surrounding everything, including those things that are called free. When something is free to us, it is because someone else has paid for it. When we are said to be free to do something, or say something, there are always rules attached to this freedom, even when those rules are unspoken rules. And so therefore, what is free is not cheap.
     In the free world, where we are blessed with political and religious liberties, we often love to say, "This is a free country and we can do what we want, go where we want to go and say what we want to say, as long as no one else gets hurt." Yes. As my late stepdad would say, "I think we have too much freedom. that may be our trouble in this society." Could he have had a point?" Yes, I think so! The fact is, in many free societites we are free to do things that are legal but not necessarily moral or helpful; such things are said to not "hurt people" and are supposed to be "no one's business." There is the matter of marital infidelity, having "love affairs" and romantic relationships outside of one's marriage. For many years, far too many popular songs have "celebrated" the "joys of forbidden fruit" and have lamented the "oppressiveness" of society's unspoken rules, and God's Law, that denounce such behavior and say that it is wrong. I have seen, over and over, the stark consequences for people who take such liberties with their marriages; and taking such liberties contributes to so many missing/murdered adults! Marital unfaithfulness will hurt the partners deeply and shatter all trut and respect, even when they may try to still save their marriage. It is very wrong for popular music and other media to condone, much less celebrate, behavior that causes so much "hidden damage." Then there is abortion, which has been legal for years and is often considered a right where "no one will get hurt." Really? Even if we don't factor in the obvious, what it does to the baby in utero, what about the others in that victim's life? Even when the girls and women who have had abortions suppress/repress their abortions, they are forces to suffer in silence because society does not count the loss of a child by abortion as a loss, but as a "choice." These girls and women are forbidden to grieve and to work through their traumas, except by maligned "prolife pregnancy resource centers." Then there are the possible physical side effects of abortions, which include the risks of not being able to conceive wanted future children, miscarriages, disrupted menstrual cycles, and worse. Birth dads who learn about having fathered babies that were aborted without their consent, often feel intensely betrayed and violated. Society is cheated of the future contributions of a person who was not allowed to live. I did not mention the obvious harm that it does to the unborn because that is another discussion which could fill a book; I want to show how even socially acceptable things are not always best or helpful to any of us.
     This freedom of choice, the freedom to choose which so often has become too much freedom, come with the responsibilities to choose what is right, what is best and what is helpful. Freedom is not license. And the only reason we have these freedoms, even to excess, is because many others have paid for them. We are aware of this and that is why this Memorial Day weekend has been set aside to focus on and remember this: That it is past and present military veterans and active troops, who have paid for these freedoms, and often with their lives, whether in their wars or "at home." As one post I saw the other day put it, "Some gave all, but all gave some."
     As far as freedom of choice goes, there is the matter of free speech. But how free is free speech and how free should it be? Does it mean the freedom to influence or engage our governments to act on our behalf, as I am doing in my current petition drive? Does free speech mean saying controversial or even offensive things (as I'm doing in using the word abortion)? Does it mean saying anything we want to say? I think most of us believe that freedom of speech should stop where the rights and feelings of other start. Verbal abuse, whether online or in person, is crossing the line that goes beyond free speech. I have already written a post on this topic of free speech but I have experienced incidents since then, which apply to this. In the earliest stages of my petition campaign, I have have sought the support of a person whose has two autism-centered blogspots, and whom I have supported. I contacted this person by email and Facebook but never received any reply. Discouraged by the slow growth in gathering signatues for my petition and craving outside support, I posted multiple appeals, over the following days, for others to contact this person concerning my petition and I included the person's two published email addresses. This backfired! Apparently some other person mentioned my posts when contacting this person. This person finally relied to my email appealing to her for support, without any response to my appeal; this person clearly was angry with me, demanding that I promptly delete all my appeals to others to contact her or be reported. I tried to follow orders but this person kept sending angry emails until she was satisfied that I had everything removed. This person has disabled me from contacting her and has told me, "I do not want to hear from you again." In this person's eyes, I had definitely crossed the line that went beyond freedom of speech, harassing her and violating her privacy (even though her email addresses are published). So even if we take liberties to do what we think are okay but others do not see it as okay, as was the case with this person, our words will have consequences. In this case, I made an enemy. Much earlier, when I was new to Facebook, I took liberties to post about two missing children and posted their information and flyers on another user's Facebook Wall. This user promptly sent me a message, telling me that she was displeased with my violation of her privacy and the "imposing of my agenda and my cases" on her. We kept sending each other angry messages back and forth that were defensive; by the end of the day I found that this user had blocked me totally where I could not contact her at all. In this person's eyes, I had gone far from freedom of speech to harassment and invasion of her privacy. My online posts on her page had consequences, that of making an enemy. Even when we exercise freedom of speech, others often will see it as something else and they may, as in my case, react against us. Nothing is totally free.
     And this freedom of speech, which is the foundation of all our political and religious freedoms, is only free to us because others have paid for it. That is, past and present veterans and active military troops, have paid for all of this, often with their lives. And this freedom of speech comes with responsibilities, meaning what is free is not cheap. So let us use Memorial Day to not only commemorate our heroes but also to think about what freedom really is, that it comes with responsibilities, that its abuse can have serious consequences and that it is not free.
    

How Free Should Free Speech Be?

          A few months ago, on Facebook and on both my accounts, I sent many people in my social networks invitations to a Facebook cause called "Join in the Fight to Stop Dishonoring the President." I was gratified to get a good response to this cause, though many simply ignored it. Always, I attached a message with the cause, stressing that it was nonpartisan, not agenda-driven and with a focus to restore honor to the office of the Presidency despite past Presidents' unPresidential conduct that has disgraced the office. However, many still saw this cause as controversial and offensive and let me know it. They sent me messages, telling me angrily, "Don't ever send send this to me again! Don't ask me to support HIM!" or "I'm not about to support this PIG!" One person declared, "This is it! I'm unfriending you now! No Obama supporters will stay on my page!"
          Even more recently, I had posted about a very popular, even "cool" child abuse awareness movement that sponsored many awareness events, complete with a host of festivites during the month of April. Though I, like any person of good will, am gratified when people work to help children in distress and seek to protect all children (I'm a mom, after all), I felt a vague unease about the Founder of this movement and how this Founder was going about it all. Also, the tight financial situations of most of those close to me made fund-raising unrealistic. However, I agreed to raise awareness and was the top recuiter to their cause on the Facebook Causes site, much of because well-meaning people seemed to see adding their names to this cause as somehow the "cool" thing to do to show their support and help abused children. Eventually, on Wednesday, March 21, I published my blog about this movement, targeting those who knew nothing about it and mainly with them in mind. I mentioned my concerns about the cost-effectiveness of all the awareness efforts of this movement and mentioned that the media was "hyping it up." I ended my blog with a challenge to people to not limit their help of abused children to involvement in this movement but to get involved on their own. I had provided the toll-free 24/7 child abuse hotline in conclusion. Proud of my effort, I erred in sending the link to this blog to the Founder as well as to the (now former) Public Relations person. This backfired almost immediately! For the following morning, I was aghast to see that the Public Relations (PR) person, who showed me much support, sent me an angry message, hitting me hard with this person's angry accusations about the blog's unfairness and bias and lack of background research. She referred to a few of my past posts, accusing me of  of "snarky" expressions of "vitriol" toward the Founder. I couldn't send her a reply and saw that she had removed me from her friends list. Apparently, this PR person, in her anger, went back to the Founder, as this person totally blocked me on Facebook so that this Founder became invisible to me. My membership in this movement was abruptly terminated!
          On my end, I have encountered many, many people who, in-person and online, have made it clear that they hold views that strongly oppose my views. Many months ago, I sent invites to many people, inviting them to see a video called "God's Love Letter." A person whom I sent the invite to, sent me a message saying,  "Don't sent me religious stuff anymore. I don't do God." On Facebook, I have seen many posts defending gun ownership rights, especially in the wake of high-profile shootings. Because we are in the time of Presidential campaigns, on both my accounts, more and more people have made it public which Candidate they support or oppose, knowing, I'm sure, that they will offend many with opposing views. Myself, I have never ended relationships becaue of opposing views though I have lost many Facebook "friendships" over mine.
          There is a Facebook cause and there are a few Facebook pages called "Spread the Word to End the Word," meaning stopping the practice of any future use of the word "retarded." "Homophobia" refers to fear and hate of anything in reference to homosexuals and homosexuality, but this word has been extended to saying anything negative about homesexuality and other related sexual orientation issues even out of one's deep religious convictions. Also, to emphasize the wrong of actually hurtful speech, we have coined the term "verbal abuse" and when it's done online, we call it "cyberbullying."
          All of these examples and many more, refer to the question of how many free speech rights we are entitled to until they cross the line into speech that hurts others, even scars them for life. It seems that we all extol the virtues of the First Amendment until others exercise their own free speech to the point of offending us with their opposing views. So many friendships and other relationships have been harmed or severed because of the inability to respect the free speech rights of others or because of confusing free speech with with abusive speech. According to my research, the most common reason for Facebook "unfriendings," especially among women, are posts that they see as offensive, anything ranging from opposing political viewpoints to pornographic photos.
          At home, when we have had our TV on  political programming, frequently members of the opposing political party from the one our family supports, speak on talk shows and in campaign ads. And let me tell you, the name-calling can get heated! When members of the opposing party take opposing postions from those we hold dear, I will keep quiet, knowing these people have the same First Amendment rights that those of my own party do even though I DO NOT LIKE what they are saying. Others, though, seeing these positions as personal attacks on them, will often yell things like "Shut up!" and "We don't want to hear ANYTHING you have to say!" and attack the motives of the opposing party. While I have not indulged in name-calling this opposing party, I have (certainly in my thoughts) and aloud, have accused this party of wrong motives.  But, even though politicians and their outspoken supporters say things that may anger us and offend us, must this always become a hostile shouting match? Even when people say things that offend us, whatever it's about, as long as what they say is respectful and clean, shouldn't it be considered as protected free speech? Yes, there are many times, at home, when we have taken offense when the opposing party has indulged in name-calling and verbally abusing our party, attacking our motives, indulging in hate and mean-spiritedness. Though it's so easy to attack the motives of those who oppose our deeply cherished views, especially in politics and religion, it shouldn't be done, as the opponents' view is just as real to them as ours is to us.
          Then there's the matter of whether people have the right to hold postions on contoversial issues they aren't close to or can't relate to, personally. For example, very recently, in Congress, an all-male panel met to to discuss access to contraception for women vs. religious liberty; this has angered many woman, as no women served on this panel. Also, for months, politicians, all male, have been arguing for the need to limit women's access to contraception. The basis of female anger at all this is because this effort comes across as another effort at male dominance and "men telling women what to do with their bodies." This seems so offensive, in light of the fact that it's women's bodies that get pregnant and women who have to deal with pregnancy's consequences. In untimely pregnancies, it's usually the woman who has to make all the tough decisions (single-parenting, adoption, abortion) and then live with permanent consequences, regardless of the choice made. The arguments men make is that women's choices in contraception and pregnancy do affect them, especially when they learn about aborted children whom they had fathered and saw that they were left out of the decision-making process. Also, many men want to control the size of their families. Along the same lines on another issue, many parents resent advice from those who aren't raising children, forgetting that everyone has once been a child themselves. And so on and on with other issues. Lack of closeness to or experience of an issue doesn't mean that one can't have and express opinions on it, as long as the opinions are expressed with respect and without profanity.
          Returning to the topic of my recent March 21 blog about the popular child abuse awareness movement and the consequences I experienced because of it, the PR person for this movement said that I had no right to opine about a topic that I had not researched. When I was drafting my blog, I searched the Founder's entire website, which I had visited multiple times and saw that it lacked most information needed for accountability and transparency. Over a week later, allegations against this Founder came out that were worse than my suspicions, which were based on this Founder's lack of transparency and accountability and the many posts on this Founder's Facebook page and business page, including personal "glamor shots" and apparent narcissism. The PR person for this movement announced on that person's business page the need to resign involvement in the movement though that person has never reconnected with me. Lesson? When we use free speech we need to be ready to take the consequences, which are often unwanted.
          But many forms of speech clearly cross the line into abuse, because of profanity that distracts others from what we really want to say or or exploits others in the making of it, like pornography or wounds people emotionally. We have heard of many bullycides where kids were so hurt by relentless verbal bullying that they didn't want to live anymore. We have heard of many killers who have, in the past, viewed pornography or other such destructive material. And many break-ups and divorces happen because many partners and spouses are so hurt by chronic verbal abuse that they want out of the relationship. Words can indeed hurt, often for life.
          Want free speech rights? Allow others to exercise theirs and use yours with clean language and with all respect.