Actions are different from words, and words are not violence. This is the position of the free speech absolutist.
Though it's tempting to assume American newsrooms are made up entirely of free-speech hardliners after all, freedom of speech is enshrined specifically in this country's founding documents that would be assuming too much.
As this week has shown, there are a number of media personalities who believe President Trump's ugly press criticisms may be responsible for any future acts of violence against journalists.
"What I worry about more than anything else is that there are people in the country [who] are going to hear over and over again from the president, that the reporters [and] journalists are enemies of the state," Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffery Goldberg said this week during a panel discussion at the Aspen Ideas Festival.
He added, "And someone, God forbid, but someone is going to do something violent against journalists in a large way, and then, I know where the fault lies. We're heading in that direction and it's quite frightening."
Goldberg's concerns are shared by more than just a few in the press.
CNN's Clarissa Ward suggested elsewhere this week that Trump's newsroom criticisms may embolden people abroad to attack, and possibly murder, foreign correspondents.
"[A]t what point does this become dangerous? And I'm not just talking about dangerous in terms of tearing at the social fabric, I'm talking about dangerous as in a journalist gets hurt, because I can tell you working overseas in war zones, people are emboldened by the actions of this administration, emboldened by the all-out declaration of war on the media," she said during a panel discussion.
She added in a question directed at CNN's Chris Cillizza, "If I'm getting it in the neck, Chris, I can only imagine what a person like you is dealing with. At what point does this become reckless or irresponsible, Chris?"
Cillizza, who lives and works in that notoriously dangerous war zone known as Washington, D.C., responded, "I don't want to say we're past that point."
Playboy White House correspondent Brian Karem begged to differ, saying, "We are past that point."
"I think it is already dangerous what the Trump administration is doing, which is Brian's point," Cillizza agreed.
Just to be clear, everyone on that media panel is an American. There was not even the slightest pushback against the idea that words spoken by one party are responsible for actions of another.
Words matter, of course, as there is a great deal of power in what our leaders say. Words can elevate, and they can diminish. Words cannot, however, be held responsible for the wrongdoings of others.
If we argue that rhetoric is to blame for certain acts of violence, then shouldn't the natural conclusion to that line of thinking be that certain types of speech ought to be banned or regulated so as to protect against possible future harm? Wouldn't it be irresponsible not to regulate this type of speech if it is indeed responsible for violence caused to others? This is all rubbish, of course, as the speech-can-kill line requires that one subordinate personal responsibility to external factors not directly involved in specific actions. It frees the criminal from the crime.
This is the sort of thinking one would expect from underdeveloped college students, not professional journalists.
American media benefit enormously from the free speech protections included in the U.S. Constitution. Let's show our appreciation by not attributing the terrible actions of others to our freedom to speak freely.
Link: