In last week's article, I enumerated 10 rights which every individual should and must be afforded as a human being in society. Now I shall begin the process of expanding on these rights, and I shall start with the freedom of speech. I wish to start here for several reasons: 1) The subject of free speech has long and forever been a controversial issue, 2) Freedom of speech is believed by some to be under attack in the United States, and 3) Writing this is, of course, in and of itself an exercise of free speech. It seems logical to establish my right to speak on rights before I talk about those rights, no?

So what does it mean to have the right to freedom of speech? The Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “the legal right to express one’s opinions freely.” There are many ways in which to execute this right: conversing with peers, posting on Facebook, writing an article, donating to a political campaign, burning a flag, and penning a letter are some common examples. "Freely" means of one’s own accord and without external control, restraint, or interference. In other words, the right to say nearly anything you want whenever you want. There are, however, some important limits and boundaries.

First among these is the lack of a right to be heard. No one can or should be forced or coerced into listening to or giving time to receiving messages or opinions. This includes an important provision on which I touched in my Charlottesville article – the right to free speech does not guarantee or obligate the volunteering of a platform for your speech. For example, if Adolf Hitler reincarnate wanted to spew anti-semitic views, no one is obligated to say “Yes, sure, use this stage that we have here.” In addition, your speech also opens you to the speech of others. Others have a right to criticize what you say.

The second, and perhaps the most important, limitation on free speech is that of no harm. An individual has the right to any produce any speech which is foreseeable, knowingly, or purposefully the proximate cause of the infringement upon of the rights of other individuals. In other words, if you intend, know, or could foresee that your speech results in other’s rights being restricted or violated, it should not be protected.

One example of this is the case of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. In this case, the person who shouts “Fire!” should at least be able to foresee that upon hearing this exclamation the other theatergoers will spring from their seats and dash for the exits. This leads to one or more persons being battered (violating the right to one’s body). But for the person yelling “Fire!”, the battered individual(s) would not have been harmed. Thus, such exclamations should not be protected.

Another limit is on the inciting of violence or other infringements on others’ rights. The former involves encouraging another individual or a group of individuals to harm others or their property which, but for that, they would not have otherwise done. Someone who is known to be convincing who publicly tells a mob to batter, kill, or destroy property would not be practicing protected speech. The exception would be such encouragement to break free of individuals who are clearly violating the encouraged individuals’ rights.

As for inciting other infringements on others’ rights, this can be a tricky and multi-faceted issue. Basically, if an individual produces speech specifically intended to result in another individual’s rights being infringed upon, and that speech would foreseeably be the cause of that individual’s rights being infringed upon, that speech should not be protected. Here, one might refer to hate speech. Here I would make an important distinction. Hate speech, while controversial, should be protected if it’s nature and likely result is just that others know that you despise a particular group. Beyond offense to the referred-to group, such speech has no substantive negative effects. While this speech should be protected, that does not mean it shouldn't be discouraged

Finally and conversely, if hate speech is produced and specifically intended that to cause individuals' rights being infringed upon, it should not be protected. I especially and particularly refer to politics, government, and legal ramifications. That is, given the intent test, speech which would or is supposed to result in policies which prevent or substantially reduce the ability of people to exercise their rights. In an extreme example, this means that speech advocating for and likely to result in concentration camps, public support for conversion therapy, ethnic cleansing, or the banning of gender-affirmation surgeries and legal identity changes, should not be protected. These policies would violate rights to one’s body, identity, or life. Does that mean this speech should be actively sought out and punished by the government? Not necessarily. Neither, however, should it be guaranteed that someone won’t stop them producing such speech.