John Buttrick writes from his Vermont Folk Rocker in his Concord home, Minds Crossing. He can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com

Remember the response we were taught as children, “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Even when I used the slogan as a child against a person who was saying mean things, my feelings told me that those words were not necessarily true. We just threw the words out there even when they felt false.

Today, many still give credence to the idea that words of any kind; true or false, insightful or inciting, civil or offensive; are acceptable according to the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

However, the operative words in the Constitution are “make no law.” I suggest that the First Amendment included the understanding that it would be extremely difficult to make a law defining the nuanced acceptability of appropriate speech. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “All I need is a sheet of paper and something to write with, and then I can turn the world upside down.”

Vice President Kamala Harris recently responded to some inciteful words spoken by a person with popular influence. She observed it is important for such a person to understand that their words have more impact, power, and consequence than the words of the average person. A just law against the words of Nietzsche’s upside-down world or a law censoring the words of an influential person would be difficult if not impossible to draft. Therefore, “make no law abridging freedom of speech.”

However, the First Amendment does not speak of the moral imperative to consider the negative impact of a speaker’s words. The speaker has the obligation to self-censor. Words must be evaluated by the speaker or writer for their influence upon feelings, beliefs, and behavior of others. When the TV news reports a story contains disturbing images or commentary, a prior warning is given for those who might be negatively affected.

For example, the impact on a depressed person exposed to a story about suicide. Incidents of careless or insightful words have resulted in the violent actions threatening Congress on January 6 and the two assassination attempts on Donald Trump. People who refuse to moderate their own speech put themselves and others into harm’s way. Free speech is not a free-for-all.

Often when the First Amendment is invoked, it leads to entanglement in the mantra, “free speech,” and is an indication that some spoken or written words have been perceived as weapons used against a person or a group. Or speech has been used for indoctrination or to promote conspiracy theories and assert false information.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

New Hampshire State Police join ICE task force

‘It’s always there’: 50 years after Vietnam War’s end, a Concord veteran recalls his work to honor those who fought

Facing 30% budget cut, university leaders say raising tuition is not an option

25-year-old man shot by police in Keene, AG investigating

Two of five Grappone auto franchises to be sold as part of family transition

‘Anger and backlash’ – Allenstown residents frustrated over elimination trash services

Your Daily Puzzles

Cross|Word

Flipart

Typeshift

SpellTower

Really Bad Chess

Turning to the “free speech” defense shields people from the opportunity for the examination and discussion of responsibility, obligation, accurate information, and civility. The First Amendment does not necessarily give permission to say anything one chooses to an individual or group. The amendment gives citizens the right to criticize the conduct of the government without being censored or punished: “the right … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Given the difficulty introduced when insisting that the main issue is free speech, it is important to center upon seeking speech that discourages coercion and physical violence.

During these days leading up to the election, candidates that justify verbally attacking opponents, giving false information, and circulating conspiracy theories as free speech must be called out. They must be urged to choose their words carefully, because words can either hurt or empower.

The goal of election debates should be to empower voters, not denigrate them. Sticks and stones may break bones, but voters elect and empower chosen leaders while securing democracy.