There ARE limits to free speech

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.  Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States

Much has been made about Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon working to curtail messaging that they feel may incite violence or spread falsehoods. Political commentators (professional and amature) are calling this a violation of the First Amendment - Freedom of Speech.

As a librarian, I have always been a staunch supporter of free speech and intellectual freedom. In the column “The Neglected Side of Intellectual Freedom”, Library Media Connection, March/April 2013, I argued that even students have a right to free expression and need practice in doing so to fully participate in society:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.   Intellectual freedom includes having the right to create and disseminate information and opinions as well as having the right to access the intellectual products of others. 

Given the difficulty and exclusivity of publishing in print (primarily books, newspapers, and magazines) prior to online publishing, the expressive side of the intellectual freedom coin has been largely ignored by school librarians and teachers. But given the increased importance of social networking, the availability of Web 2.0 tools, the realization that knowledge creation is a valuable skill, and the growing recognition of creativity as a primary means of securing a place in the contemporary workforce, all educators (especially librarians) should be advocating for students' rights to be read, heard, and viewed.

I fervently stand by the statements I made in this column. And while the column expressed the need for students to be able to express their opinions online, it certainly pertains to adults as well.

But being the Pollyanna I sometimes am, I did not specifically point out that I expect the responsible use of online communications as well. Cyberbullying, harassment, profanity, and other inappropriate uses of technology have always been covered by school policies related to technology use - and the penalty for technology misuse was often the loss of priviledges.

I would like to believe most people would agree that speech that causes harm - physical or mental to others - should be exempt from protection from the First Amendment. Statements that are libelous, statements that incite physical violence, statements that may lead to direct danger to others are inappropriate and should be illegal. Statements that demean others on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation, while not against the law, do not have to be supported by private communications companies or services. (I have the right, I believe, to delete comments or not accept guest posts on the Blue Skunk I feel are hateful or illegal and my host, Squarespace, should be able to deny me service should my statements violate its terms of use.)

The rub, of course, lies in one’s interpretation of just how harmful, untruthful, or dangerous a communication might be as to whether it falls under the protection of the First Amendment. In fact, I would guess that while many people could agree in general on free speech rights, when it comes to specific statements, interpretations will diverge. Is not capitalizing Black when referring to a person of African-American descent racist? Did Trump’s tweets encourage violence at the Capitol on January 6th? Should I be able to block a highway during a protest march? And of course, as a writer, I have no control over others' interpretations of my message. Language will always be ambiguous to some degree.

This is a conundrum which may be better addressed by more thoughtful pundits and more informed legal scholars. But each person should think about what constitutes protected speech and what guidelines they themselves should follow in communicating responsibly - despite how passionately they may feel about the issue.

Image source Shay Horse/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Ahead of my time - again

The curse of creative thinkers is that the world is not always ready for their ideas. Technology skill standards for teachers and administrators, online behavioral and safe use standards, even the educational use of web itself, all appeared in my writings long before these topics were recognized by professional organizations and educational journals. What's the expression? - a prophet is without honor in his own land.

In retirement I no longer try to make predictions about libraries, technology, or education. I mostly muse on personal experiences. But even now it seems I can't help but be a bit ahead of my time. Check this "invention" that was the topic of a recent Wall Street Journal article: 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-will-replace-the-desk-11610553481

It consists of a dentist’s-office-style reclining seat, with an attached computer monitor stand, laptop stand and magnetic desk surface, all of which adjust with the push of a button as the user stands, sits or lies down. 

This looked strangely familiar to me: a recliner that also doubled as a home office. Here is why:

http://doug-johnson.squarespace.com/blue-skunk-blog/2020/5/3/the-secret-to-in-home-productivity.html

I do 90% of my work from my faithful lazyboy. (A mass shudder from chiropractors just went up worldwide - could you feel it?) I spend usually three to four hours each day in my comfortable old friend writing and reading with a laptop computer. The chair's padded back support, adjustable positions, elevated leg rest, and leather-like covering allow me to focus on my work rather than aching shoulders, wrist twisting, or leg cramps from sitting bolt upright, slouching, or excessive standing at a desk. I do get up to get coffee now and again.

 No, I won't sue the manufacturer for stealing my idea that I shared on this blog last May. (Plenty of time to bring the new chair design into production!) I can only hope revealing my productivity secrets makes the world a better place.

P.S. - On a second reading of the WSJ article, I see these chairs have actually been shipping since 2016. I must have let my productivity advice slip earlier than I thought.

BFTP: What humor is appropriate?

Why do we laugh at such terrible things? Because comedy is often the sarcastic realization of inescapable tragedy. Bryant H. McGill

The above graphic is made the rounds a couple years ago - one of the more "sarcastic" responses to the proposition that armed teachers would make for safer schools in the wake of the Florida shooting.

I am embarrassed to say it, but I found it very funny. I am embarrassed because I am well aware of the grief and terror mass shootings have caused in this country and that the parent of a child murdered in them would find nothing amusing in the chart above.

Most if not all humor has an element of pain or discomfort at its heart. From a person slipping on a banana peel to the ribaldry of Lysistrata to latest grotesque of Trump in current editorial cartoons, harm or embarrassment or discomfort are essential components to finding something funny.

The question for me is where do we draw the line? I do not believe we should encourage or create or distribute humor that is racist or homophobic. But how about jokes that emphasize the difference between men and women (75% of all humor?) Can this be labeled sexist? Are we denigrating religion if Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha is in a comedic sketch? Can I poke fun of my own Scandinavian heritage by telling an Ole and Lena joke?

I am not trying to make any point here except to say that knowing what is appropriately funny seems to be getting more difficult each day. That I suspect there is no comedic effort that does not offend someone, somewhere. 

What yardstick do you, dear readers, use when determining whether to share a joke, a story, a cartoon? Or is humor simply something too risky anymore?

******************

The latest "funny" making the rounds after the attack on the US Capitol last week:

Original post 3/13/18