The problem with putting free speech in play (i.e. making it negotiable, rather than unassailable) is that those in power will have greater ability to curtail free speech for their own benefits.

The founding fathers realized that certain rights should not be doled out based on how powerful you are. If so, then they are no longer rights.

I grew up being taught "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names can never hurt me". And therefore they can't. If you allow them to hurt you, then you allow other people to control you with their words.

Also, once words can be thought of as injurious, powerful people/groups can use this to crush opponents, by framing dissenting views as harmful- and therefore removing those views from public discourse.

The political environment is full of great examples: dissenters to government policies being called un-American (last administration) or dangerously misguided (current one)- providing full justification to ex-communicate those views.

I'm concerned. Keep writing.

I agree that free speech means you have the right to say what I don't want to hear, and I have that right as well. I also believe that common courtesy demands that if you and I do not agree I respect you enough to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

I believe that some of those posting on your blog may feel unable to accomplish this. It is permissable to disagree with one's philosophy without attacking their person.

When we fail to have productive dialogue we have begun the slow walk of death. Thus far I still see productive dialogue in many areas. Not all of the dialogue is respectful, but it is present.

We must teach by example how to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

There has been an interesting show on Freedom of Speech on PBS, has anyone seen it? There are people out there worried about our loss of freedom of speech...

In the debate between those that desire respectful communication, and those that know freedom of speech is essential to our American way of life, we need to figure out a way to build a bridge between both parties. I think teaching Emotional Intelligence could be that bridge.

Feelings are merely information. It is our body’s way of keeping us alert to our safety. The primitive reptilian part of our brain needs to be tempered by the reasoning part of our brain. Emotion gets our attention, but then what we do with that information determines the success of the outcome.

As a Teen Therapist, I help teens and pre-teens learn how to manage their feelings. Adolescence is a time of extreme change. As nerve cells in teenager's brain become myelinated, this leads to an acceleration in their response time. Hormonal changes contribute to body changes as well as swings in moods.

Teens are highly vulnerable to slights, and at the same time, quick to dish them out. Testing each other, and the world, they are often uncensored in their expression. My job is to help them digest their experiences that they might grow from them.

Mr. Kalman’s work has been extremely beneficial in my addressing bullying at both at my client’s school as well as in their home. Teachers, parents, classmates and siblings have all been known to say things that were experienced as hurtful. By teaching my clients how to slow down and tolerate their immediate discomfort, they can begin to understand what they are feeling and think about how they want to respond.

Unless a fellow classmate is pathologically disturbed, Mr. Kalman’ simple techniques, like using humor or walking away, have turned around a good number of “bullying” situations. By my helping the teen process what the taunting meant to them, I also have the opportunity to address underlying self-esteem issues that existed long before that particular insult was delivered.

Bottom line, life is not always fair and not everyone will like us. The capacity to accept oneself, and to be comfortable in one’s own skin, is invaluable in living in a world of diversity where differences in preference and opinions abound.

Thanks. It sounds like you do good work! (And I don't mind your attributing some of your success to me!)

Well here we go again! Congress is getting into the act..doesn't that make you feel cozy and comfy. Apparantly it does because the same old do not work methods are about to get recycled under, no doubt, new terminology. As a BCABA I find Izzy's philosophy helps build charactor and confidence in kids who never had it. It is knowledge, teaching, parenting and patience that will help kids conquer many common bully situations at school and home with siblings. There just is not enough time for todays overstressed moms with multiple kids. Giving children a safe place to practice self-sufficiency social skills based on sound behavioral science is just what is needed. Not punishment, not more rules,not more repression of ideas. Let's learn as adults the skills we can teach our children when a bully approaches. Let's observe these kids and coach them, not by being comforted excessively but in reinforcing the skills to emerge from an emotionaly hurtful situation with deeper understanding of themselves and the motivation of the bully. If we point them in the right direction with kindness, let them make mistakes and learn without excessive attention to the bully or the one bullied, our kids will learn to stand on their own. Give Congress the boot. Let well grounded behavioral science have the reins and you will have positive results.

It truly warms my heart when I see there are readers who understand exactly what I am talking about and express themselves so well. It is a shame that not all practitioners of psychology see that trying to get the government to passing laws that protect us from each other is an abandonment of psychology.

Thanks,
Geminga

Excellent post! I see that the issue of freedom of speech has sparked your interest lately.

What baffles me the most about those who argue that freedom of speech should have limitations is how they expect to determine what is and isn't offensive material? Being offended by a comment is something purely subjective! Thirty years ago, the word "negro" was part of everyday language and now it is considereed an offensive word. How can we, as a society, possibly keep up to date with what is and isn't offensive language?

Furthermoe, if your ultimate goal is to convince someone that their opinion is wrong, the last thing you want to do is tell them they are not allowed to voice that opinion.

Freedom of speech is not a conditional right. As George Carlin said in one of his bits, "There are only to possibilities when it comes to rights; either you have them or you don't!". The moment you start splitting hairs, so to speak, with what parts of speech are permitted and what parts are prohibited, problems inevitably arise and you create more dissent and intolerance.

Thanks for the comment. Yes, George Carlin was a major campaigner for freedom of speech. This may be the first time I wrote about freedom of speech in my blog, but I have been writing about freedom of speech for years. If you go to www.Bullies2Buddies.com, and do a search for freedom of speech, you will se many references. I also discuss freedom of speech at all my seminars. It is the solution to the vast majority of bullying and interpersonal problems.

Best Wishes,
Izzy Kalman

Izzy, I cannot believe that a man in your profession condones bullying and turning bullies into your friends. Do you not know the old saying "Bad companions ruin good character?"
Freedom of speech does not equate the right to attack people by the use of name-calling, slander, gossip, lies and defamation.
I have been the victim of bullying virtually my whole life throughout school, in the workplace and online. The principal at my school was a total softy who was afraid to use corporal punishment, and it was only when I was physically attacked with a cigarette lighter that he suspended the offending students for two weeks.
At work I have been sexually harassed, gossiped about behind my back by co-workers, had a younger co-worker write derogatory names about me on my roster. If you think that this sort of behaviour doesn't affect people later on in life - think again! I am basically a very shy and reclusive person, only doing volunteer work, and don't make new friends very easily thanks to bullying.
If I was the Prime Minister of my country I would make bullying of any sort punishable by hefty fines on first offence and a jailable offence the second. Or even better still: banish bullies to the outback where they can perpetuate their animalistic behaviour. They have NO place in the modern so-called "civilised" world.

Someone telling you that you have "no right" to say something is not the same as passing a law to forbid you to say it. It's just their speech, just words, as protected as your own. Before declaring that free speech is dead, how about supplying some concrete proof? Anti-bullying laws that restrict speech may very well constitute violations of constitutional freedom of speech. But this does not mean freedom of speech is dead.

Sure, there are lots of people who'd like to restrict free speech for whatever reason. They exist now and have always existed. But are they successful? Do we truly have fewer freedoms now than in the past when, as you imply, freedom of speech was "alive"?

It sounds like you are exaggerating, casting the anti-bullying folks into a convenient group of free speech killers (I think you used the word "murder"!) This simplistic us vs. them thinking provides no nuanced understanding of the issue. It sounds like a rather defensive rant against your critics.