Celebrating Freedom of Rudeness

Many years ago, I remember hearing a story about an immigrant who was visiting the United States and was learning about our Constitution and system of government. In a conversation with his American host, the visitor spoke glowingly about our democracy but expressed concern that like a ship, there seemed to be so much sail, but not quite enough anchor. His point being, does our rightful embrace of individual rights sometime cross the line in which we are willing to sacrifice the greater good? Did we run the risk at elevating the individual and individual whims at the expense of agreed upon community standards and norms.

I thought about this when I read about the big blowup around a teen's irreverent "tweet" (Twitter post to all you who aren't social-media savvy) in regards to a visit to the Kansas state Capitol. In a nutshell, Kansas teen Emma Sullivan decided it would be funny to tweet the following to the world:

"Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot."

Governor Sam Brownback's public relations team subsequently caught wind of tweet, and in what can only be called a big-time overreaction, made Ms. Sullivan's tweet known to the principal of her high school. To compound that overreaction, the principal proceeded to overreact, allegedly calling Ms. Sullivan an embarrassment to the school and disrespectful, and demanded that Ms. Sullivan write a letter of apology to Governor Brownback and his staff.

Ms. Sullivan's parents (who like their daughter are proud liberal progressives) responded in outrage and before soon, the whole incident was on the national media. Ms. Sullivan refused to apologize for her tweet, citing her first amendment rights, much to the cheering of the liberal left.

Did Governor Brownback's staff and the principal grossly overreact? Absolutely. What I think is alarming that Ms. Sullivan is being hailed as some civic-minded first amendment hero in certain circles. Are we seriously lauding this girl's behavior as the standard at which we want our children to engage in political discourse? Do we want kids who don't recognize the distinction between respectful disagreement and dialogue with political policies and immature teen rudeness? "He blows a lot?" Yeah, that's a really insightful starting point for a discussion around policies and alternative legislation.

What's laughable is that Ms. Sullivan actually buys into the "I'm a crusading role-model" baloney. When she releases statements like, "The issue is relevant and, if anything, is a starting point of dialog with the governor about his policies and how our First Amendment rights can be taken away." Give me a break. "You suck" is a fascinating way to start a dialog with the governor.

But maybe that's emblematic in the soul of a country which has some lost the discipline and value of civil discourse. It's tragic on both sides. Conservatives and liberals both rightly united after Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot, taking a stand against inflammatory language and rhetoric in the political arena. But underlying all of this is a common foundation around respect, acknowledging that people can disagree with the best of intentions and understanding that while those who disagree politically aren't evil, neither do they suck nor blow.

Freedom of speech is the right to not be prosecuted for views, but it doesn't isolate us from rightful consequences of our actions. When language is improper, derogatory or inflammatory, the perpetrators should be told and corrected. What's troubling is that common decency is taking a backseat to whether a certain type of rhetoric plays on people's worst divisive nature. The first filter isn't whether something is rude or inappropriate, it's whether one happens to agree that the subject criticized is worthy of attack or not. The knee jerk reaction of progressive bloggers and pundits is to observe that the slight is aimed towards a socially conservative Republican, and then scream, "Freedom of Speech!" Of course, if the target was President Obama, they'd react in outrage. Both sides of the political fence play this game, though - the target somehow legitimizes disrespect. It's ridiculous.

And we have a real-life example of this, when country singer Hank Williams, Jr, who upon comparing President Obama to Hitler was fiercely defended by progressives for his freedom of speech and lauded as a champion for being a politically aware musician. Oh, wait, that didn't happen. He was roundly criticized and rightfully censured and had his pre-Monday Night Football intro cancelled. I just mixed him up with the Dixie Chicks, who took shots at President Bush instead and called him "a dumb f*ck" and were roundly defended by liberals for standing up for her freedom of speech. Of course, that the target was good 'ol 'W' made it okay.

Let's be consistent, shall we? Let's stop applauding inappropriate and disrespectful talk and opinions in the name of free speech.