My profound epiphany
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Above you'll find the so called Bill of Rights... actually, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Many 'natural rights' are not specifically enumerated in the Bill, although we all know we have them, and over time, the rulings of various courts have indeed enshrined those 'rights' into law. The right to have an abortion, which the Supreme Court ruled emanated from the 14th Amendment, not reproduced above. The right to privacy, which is not specifically enumerated as such, but which seems strongly implied in the Second and Third Amendment.
Another fundamental basic human right not specifically enumerated in the above, but that is perhaps the most essential of all fundamental basic human rights, is the right to peaceful possession of my own life.
'Peaceful possession' is an ancient legal principle not mentioned in the Constitution, but firmly enshrined for centuries in property law. When you rent space from a landlord, as long as you fulfill the conditions of your lease (contract) with that landlord, you have a right to 'peaceful possession' of that property. The landlord cannot enter the property without prior notice, and cannot intentionally disrupt your 'peaceful possession' of this property you have lawfully leased. 'Peaceful possession' is the underlying basis of noise ordinances and other anti nuisance legislation. It is firmly understood in all civilized cultures that every individual human being has an absolute right to 'peaceful possession' of their legitimate property or living space... and what more legitimate a property do we as individuals own, than our own lives?
It is important to understand and accept that this is indeed not only a basic human right, but the most fundamental human right, the one of most primary significance, the one to which all other 'natural rights', specifically enumerated or not, must subordinate themselves. What this means is, yes, each and every one of us has the absolute right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, all that good stuff we see in our Bill of Rights... right up to the point where the exercise of those rights interferes with someone else's 'peaceful possession' of their own lives.
But when my freedom of expression intrudes into your right of 'peaceful possession' of your own life, I have crossed an important line. My license ends where your lifestyle begins. When I disrupt the peace and comfort of your lifestyle, I am in error... and I am not simply wrong, but I am morally and ethically wrong, as well.
Although the right to 'peaceful possesion' of our own lives is not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is strongly implied in the 4th Amendment. When I do something that offends or insults you, however inadvertent the offense may have been, however necessary to my point I may feel my phrasing was, still, what have I done but commit an 'unreasonable seizure' of one of your most precious possessions... your peace of mind? Without any kind of warrant, I have presumed to invade your emotional privacy and do you psychic trauma. With my thoughtless, heedless, inconsiderate speech or text, I have aggravated you, or angered you, or in some way offended you. Clearly, this is a violation of your basic human rights, and not to be tolerated or countenanced in any way.
When I interrupt the peace and comfort of your chosen life path, I have wronged you. I have, in a very real way, injured you. And I cannot argue that I have freedom of speech, because as I have already irrefutably demonstrated, all other rights and freedoms must necessarily be considered less important than the right of 'peaceful possession' of one's own personal life experience. If my exercise of any of my other rights causes your peace of mind to in any way be lessened or diminished, I am in the wrong. Once you make me aware of my intrusion, my monumental violation of your basic human rights, as a civil, mature human being I must immediately apologize, offer compensation for the damage I have done to your peace of mind, and undertake to never repeat the objectionable behavior again.
This is what the question comes down to -- exactly what is it you feel should be most important in these matters? There are zealots and fanatics among us who will insist that as close to an absolute freedom of expression for all individuals is the ideal that must be striven for, the goal that must be defended at all costs.
Yet this is clearly scurrilous nonsense. If everyone has the right to speak, to write, to express themselves however they want, regardless of how it makes others feel, regardless of the discomfort or the unwanted and unpleasant emotions it may stir in a potential audience, regardless of how offensive or insulting others may find their speech or writing or self expression, then all our rights are essentially meaningless.
What is the point of even going on living in a world where anyone can come along at any time at all and say anything they please, even if it is something that gravely offends me, that causes me emotional distress, that makes me sad and upset and ruins my day?
None of us want that, yet all of us have had to endure it at one time or another. All of us have turned on the TV and found something there that was so upsetting it spoiled our good mood. All of us have gone outside and had some stranger shout a racial slur or some sort of obscenity from a passing vehicle that has made us feel some unpleasant emotion we would not willingly choose to feel. All of us have been exposed to something... some annoying post on the Internet, some obnoxious t-shirt, some irritating billboard on the side of a bus, something... that has caused us undue exasperation. And we have a right, all of us do, each and every one of us, to live our lives free of that kind of unnecessary, unwarranted intrusion.
Some people will say, if you see something on TV that bothers you, change the station. If you see something on the Internet you don't like, look at something else. If you're out walking and someone shrieks an obscenity at you that makes you feel crappy, well, their right to so called 'freedom of speech' is more important than your right to not be bothered by such behavior.
But this is nonsense. Nobody should have to live this way. We have a right not to have to put up with this.
The simple truth is this: Those who believe that their freedoms could possibly be more important than the feelings and pleasures and happiness and morale of those around them, are selfish, mean, anti social and unacceptably uncivil people.
My right to express myself freely, in whatever regard I choose, using whatever words I select, can never be more important than your right to remain happy, pleased, and content with your lot in life at any given moment.
As a writer, it is extremely important that I keep these principles firmly in mind whenever I set my fingers to a keyboard. I must always remember that if I use excessive profanity, it will certainly offend some potential reader, and I have no right whatsoever to do that, as that potential reader's right to be comfortable and happy completely supercedes all other considerations. I must always bear in mind that no matter what subject I am voicing an opinion on, there will be a potential reader out there that holds that particular subject as beloved, that cherishes that particular subject in their heart of hearts and who will be deeply saddened, angered, and even embittered if I am overly negative about that subject. I must always bear the burden of continually and consciously bending every effort, using every iota of writing skill, talent, and ability I may have, towards shaping whatever words I send out into the world, so that those words cannot ever, under any circumstances, offend or insult anyone at any time.
It is your right, and my right, and everyone else's right, to be completely comfortable at all times. It is never your responsibility, as a reader, as a viewer, as a listener, as any sort of audience at all, to assume responsibility for your own emotional responses to the material presented to you, or even to take ownership of the actions you are forced to take by those emotional responses. You have an absolute right to feel offended and/or insulted by anything I may write. Even if I take the utmost care and exercise all reasonable due diligence in my earnest and heartfelt attempt to avoid offending you in any way, nonetheless, if somehow you still find offense or insult in anything I have expressed, it is entirely my fault, and never yours. Never, under any circumstances, yours.
And once you find you are offended and insulted by anything I have written or said or done, whatever response you may choose to take to this insult or offense is entirely justified. I have violated your basic human right to never be made uncomfortable in any way, and I have no moral or ethical recourse when you respond. I have licensed your response. I must take complete responsibility for your response. For I have offended you. And when one person offends another, even inadvertently, the offended person is always, always, always in the right, and always entirely vindicated in whatever response they wish to take. They bear no responsibility for their own actions from that point forward. Someone has offended them, and everything that happens from that point forward is the offending person's fault.
So it is that I undertake, from this day forward, to never speak or write a word that may in any way at any time under any circumstances cause anyone, anywhere to feel any sort of offense, embarrassment, anger, irritation, or other emotional discomfort. After all, I have no right whatsoever to offend or insult anyone in any way, under any conceivable circumstances, with my bullshit. And hopefully, I will not, ever fucking again.
















Nice job. You had me reading and writing a response in my head right up until the end.
Up to the end, I might have said: Even "Have a nice day" is offensive to some, so watch yourself.
I might have said, Stop! Think! You'll never be able to speak or write again!
I might have said: BORING!!
But you saved me from saying all that. I'll say instead, "That was FUN!"
April 27, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Love it! Even the profanity seemed totally appropriate at the end!
Yes, god forbid we have to cope with our own emotions!
April 27, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You had me on your side up to here:
"And once you find you are offended and insulted by anything I have written or said or done, whatever response you may choose to take to this insult or offense is entirely justified. I have violated your basic human right to never be made uncomfortable in any way, and I have no moral or ethical recourse when you respond. I have licensed your response. I must take complete responsibility for your response. For I have offended you. And when one person offends another, even inadvertently, the offended person is always, always, always in the right, and always entirely vindicated in whatever response they wish to take. They bear no responsibility for their own actions from that point forward. Someone has offended them, and everything that happens from that point forward is the offending person's fault.
Your reader, no matter how offended, does not have the right to in any manner and be entirely vindicated. Why not? Because the same "rules" which apply to you in making the original statement, apply to them in making their response. They do not have a mitigated right to physically injure you because you spouted some "bullshit" with which they disagreed. Now, if he or she decides to go batshit crazy on you with heaps of verbal abuse for wasting their fucking time with a dumpster full of slow-moving, satiric, verbal diarrhea, that's allowed. But physical abuse, not so much.
But that would be only if the person were offended. What they do when they like your stuff is "Rec" it.
April 27, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jade,
The entry is meant to be ironic satire. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. Passages such as the one you italicize were my attempt to show how ridiculous the entire thesis is.
For what little it's worth, I decided quite a while ago to shape my own personal moral philosophy around the idea that freedom of expression is as close to an absolute as is possible... which is to say, we must tolerate all forms of expression that do not actually cause real physical harm or damage to people or their property. That means that yes, I believe speech and other forms of expression that hurt other people's feelings, even those that are specifically crafted to do that, must be protected. I hate that, but I believe it.
Otherwise, you enter into areas that are entirely subjective. Yes, I'd like to slap the guy who shouts a racial epithet out of a speeding car at a young child on their way to school, making that kid cry. I would. That kind of cruelty infuriates me. But speech isn't action, and if we start allowing ourselves to ban forms of expression on the basis of what offends us, what hurts our feelings, what we feel is insulting, even deliberately so, we are not on a slippery slope so much as free falling into an abyss. As my first commenter cogently noted, "have a nice day" offends some people. When we open the door to "This kind of expression is banned because it may or even does demonstrably cause subjective psychological or emotional stress to people", we will inevitably end up at "You can't do anything that might make me mad, sad, or annoyed". And I don't want to live in that world.
Our recourse, when something offends us, is simple: choose to ignore it, or respond in kind. What we choose, and when, and how we implement those choices, will largely define our essential character as we go forward through life.
April 27, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Doc, read the last line in mine: What they do when they like your stuff is Rec it... Get it? Rec? As in, recommend...
I guess I was equally too subtle....
April 27, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I got it! ;)
April 27, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got that you'd recommended it. I was just afraid I'd made the satirical thesis too appealing. I mean, I'm sure there were 18th Century Englishmen who thought eating Irish babies was a fine idea... ;_
April 27, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I got that you'd recommended it. I was just afraid I'd made the satirical thesis too appealing. I mean, I'm sure there were 18th Century Englishmen who thought eating Irish babies was a fine idea... ;_
April 27, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute... you can't just jump in here and go against you whole thesis! ;)
April 27, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was the middle thing, again...?
April 27, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you bebunking the accusation that the Left has no tolerance for politically incorrect speech?
Yeah, I never bought that proposition either. It always seemed to me that the Right used this retort to suggest it was not that they had a stupid idea, but that the Left was against it because it was impolite. The Right never could defend against the suggestion that it was simply a stupid idea.
April 27, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
grrrrrrrrr...I just HATE it when I bite hook, line and sinker!!!
As was Ramona, I was composing retorts as I read, getting more and more pissed with each passing paragraph...
You owe me a Valium!
Good job!
April 27, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was so inspired by this that I ran right out to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre. But I couldn't find one...nobody can afford to spend the 10 bucks. What fun is it to yell FIRE in an empty theatre? None at all. I went home and kicked the dog instead.
April 27, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, everybody.
I post frequently to a local hobby site here in River City. I post exactly the same sort of stuff there as I post here, but over there, I have become a pariah, because the ironic snark I employ in all my work here as regards politics, has provoked little but insults and obscenities on that site.
As a thought experiment, I posted this exact same essay over there at the same time as I posted it here. We see the responses it garnered here. Over there, the first response it garnered was "DOC STOP BEING A GIGANTIC DOUCHE!!!"
It's nicer over here. Even when I say something mildly critical about President Obama and people get in my face about it, nobody calls me a dick or a douche, and I'm reasonably sure that if anyone did, I'd have about fifty people swarm the thread and tell that person to shut up and stop trolling.
Over there, the most reasonable people on the site are currently scolding me that when I post things that draw this sort of insulting invective in response, it's my fault for being 'sarcastic' in the first place, and I need to expect that sort of thing, and I'm a fool if I don't.
Ah, well. Thanks again for the validation. It's good to know it really is them, not me.
April 28, 2009 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink