The Ethics of Free Speech

Ever since the massacre in Tucson earlier this year the airwaves (and Internet channels) have been jammed with people debating whether the rather militant rhetoric of the past two years had anything to do with the shooting. Even granted that the shooter was a deranged lunatic, and might just as easily have shot someone because his dog told him to or because he wanted to impress some actress he had never met, much of the man’s blathering were right out of the right-wing talk-radio playbook, and there is no denying that he shot someone that people on the far Right wanted shot. The people who have been spreading that kind of talk are claiming they had nothing to do with this, and railing at the people on the left for trying to make political capital out of a tragedy. Meanwhile, I’m wondering where the right to free speech and the right to make money on inflammatory speech end and the crime of inciting violence begins – and who should get to decide that question…

First off, there’s no avoiding a great American tradition of intemperate political rhetoric, going back to the Revolutionary War. There is also no denying that if millions of people didn’t agree with those conservative sentiments, they wouldn’t tune in to listen to them or show up to see them, and all of these far-right pundits would be doing something else for a living. And, as business people, we have to acknowledge that radio and television stations (and the occasional live meeting venue) making money off of Tea Party functions and the like is good for the economy, provides value to whoever owns the channels/venues, creates jobs, and so on. But if there is a real, non-zero chance that by advocating for armed insurrection, or “Second Amendment remedies,” as one Tea Party candidate called them during the last election, will result in actual bloodshed, can we permit such events to continue?

By the same token, there isn’t much difference between banning a specific political agenda because you don’t believe it is safe, and banning the same speech because you don’t like it. Even the most fair-minded people in the world applying the most pragmatic and apolitical standards imaginable are still only human, and will have a difficult time avoiding some personal opinion bias in those circumstances. There is also the issue of underserved and underrepresented communities – people who will never get to air their political positions unless the right to free speech is extended to every member of our society, whether we like (or agree with) their positions or not. But if a group of people is using the civil right of freedom of expression to advocate (or even influence) the oppression, persecution or destruction of members of our society, can we afford to allow such speech to continue?

Which brings me to the obvious business connection: If you are the owner of a radio station, a television station, an assembly hall, or a print publication, does your obligation to your various stakeholders (the people who work for you, the people who sell you your paper and ink, all of the people in the community who make a living providing services to those industries, etc.) outweigh your ethical responsibility to the people who may be hurt if harmful speech is broadcast? Or does your responsibility to those in harm’s way mean that you must turn away business that you need to remain solvent, pay your employees, and help to keep your community afloat? Does it matter that refusing to print or broadcast such speech MAY have negative consequences for some unknown and abstract victim at some random future point, while the failure of your business WILL cause definite amounts of human suffering right now? Or does only the principle matter – and if so, which one?

It’s worth thinking about…