Freedom of Speech or Harassment

 

In the new order of things, we are faced with the Question. How do you differentiate Freedom Of Speech from harassment?

We have all seen a few videos on the protest / riots, where you the individual is challenged to ask is this a freedom of speech issue, or just blatant harassment.

It is a legitimate question, that should be asked by all.

It is because I believe that the question is muddled by the fact that some people confuse the concept of rights, with the concept of endorsement.

I can accept that people have a right to see things from a different perspective than I am seeing the issue, maybe they are right, and I am in the wrong, or vice versa. Regardless, we have approximately 330 million individuals living in the United States, and all the individuals have unique experiences in life. Some experiences may have been shared with others, but most experienced individually. However, you do not have the right to enforce your view on an unwilling person, through implied threats of violence.

I feel that a person has the right to say what that individual has perceived or experienced, and that is the freedom of speech, however, failing to convince others of their perceived wrong, they can sometimes venture into harassment behavior. This concept seems to allow for the belief in that unless you endorse my position, you are part of the problem, and not the solution, therefore, I can harass you until you endorse my position on a perceived injustice.

The problem with this, is that is harassment, and  is not a form of speech, it is a psychological form of assault, in which the participant attempts to force the person to see the issue as they see it, through implied, if not actual violence.

We see this everyday with protesters blocking traffic, to people harassing patrons in a restaurant. These are not freedom of speech issues, they have degenerated into direct confrontations, and border on assault. After all, you are not having a dialog with the person behind the steering wheel, you are instead forcing that person to make a moral choice of, will you stop or run me down?

So much of the LGBTQ community, and other special interest groups use this tactic. It is no longer enough to agree with a person they have the right to choose what is their belief or idea. It comes down to if you do not actively endorse me, then you are a bigot, racist, or any number of trigger words to harass you into endorsing their position.

I am sorry, but just because I allow you the dignity of thinking for yourself, does not include that I must endorse your choice. Just as I suspect that I have several behaviors, that I would not endorse, and not expect you to endorse, even if I have a right engage in these behaviors.

Speech is about asking questions, stating positions, and understanding issues and points of view. Also, about addressing wrongs. However, you cannot address wrongs, by assault. Might only makes right to the victor, not the victim, all you create is another victim. And simple noise and clever chants are not dialog, they are forms of controlling speech, not having a dialog.

A dialog is where you state your concerns and position, and I listen, and I state my concerns and position while you listen. Through that method, we may come to an understanding or do not. It allows for compromise and possible agreement. Harassment only creates continued tension and an impasse, which could lead to violence, and that is not a right, only an outcome.

And if a protest just exists to provide cover for a riot. That is not speech, it is an enabler for the assault.