|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers #962565 added July 14, 2019 at 12:16am
Restrictions: None
Word World
In the age of the internet, most everything we say and do online will be preserved forever. Even though our opinions, beliefs, and actions change over time, should we still be held accountable for our words, even words spoken or written years ago?
Oh, boy. This can of worms.
Short answer: No. And yes.
Long answer:
One of the founding principles of the USA is freedom of speech. Much has been written on the subject - as one would expect, given that same freedom of speech - so I won't belabor the point, but the upshot of it is that, within certain circumscribed boundaries such as issuing death threats or inciting to riot, the government is not supposed to be able to imprison us for mere words. Hence, you can say "The President is a fuckwad," and a lot of people will disagree with you, or object to your use of profanity, but you can be assured that you won't be sanctioned or imprisoned for those words alone. In theory, anyway.
This was a big deal 250 years ago or so, when saying something mean about the King could get you hung in the public square.
Still, "the government can't arrest you for those words" is a pretty low bar to clear. It says nothing about how friends, family, potential employers, landlords, or your dog should treat you.
I vaguely remember a situation a few years ago when some chick said something on Twatter like, "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS" before she got on a plane to somewhere in Africa. I can only imagine how her head must have exploded when she landed, checked Twatter, and discovered a) a shitstorm of criticism, to put it mildly, and b) she no longer had a job.
Just because you have the right to say something, that doesn't mean you don't have to take responsibility for it.
However, I think sometimes we go too far with the unofficial, private sanctions. On the one hand, it's a useful tool for weeding out, say, a pool of candidates for employment: if Candidate A is on record saying the "n" word, and Candidate B is not, and they're otherwise similarly qualified, you go with Candidate B (assuming your business isn't run by racists). On the other hand, people do change, and at some point it becomes grossly unfair to restrict the opportunities of someone who said something stupid when they were 20 - especially if they've also shown regret or apologized.
Even most actual crimes have statutes of limitations, and incarceration limits.
Where to draw the line is a matter for debate - and in a culture that is founded on the principle of freedom of speech, there can be a lot of debate - but I'm asserting that there should be a line, based on each individual circumstance.
As for me, I just hope no one ever finds the "poetry" I wrote when I was 14. Shudder. |
© Copyright 2019 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
