Freedom of Speech
© Copyright Frank D. Kanu 2000-2008
Coleen Davis wrote this great article. There is some focus on the networking site Ecademy - but I think this article has value everywhere.
Published with permission from C. Davis.
© C. Davis
We often hear about the freedom of speech and see conflicts between it and the code of conduct in Ecademy. The supplier’s code of conduct tells us that certain topics are ones that we are not allowed to discuss. It is fine to compliment the supplier, but not to criticize or provide constructive feedback for. Such imbalance leads to negative results in every situation that I have encountered.
Complex Issue
On the one hand, I feel strongly that in business it is appropriate and important to keep a professional tone. On the other hand, I refuse to be told what, where, how, when, why, or whom I should say something. If I feel like cursing, that is my right.
Along with the nearly absolute right to free speech, comes the nearly absolute responsibility and accountability for what I do say. Some potential customers may be offended by what I choose to say. Potential partners may choose not to work with me because I choose to exercise my rights. Suppliers, such as Ecademy, might choose not to do business with me as well. These are risks that I and each of us take when we choose to say what we feel is appropriate.
Consequences
Are we to give words so much power over us that they cannot be used? What are the consequences of doing so? In business, one hears words like hell, damn, fuck, ass, and bitch. While I am not a fan of inappropriate use of these or other words, I support the rights of adults to be treated as responsible adults. When we refuse to use words for fear that we will offend, we get results like two that I experienced this week…
Yesterday, someone was worried that the word “vices” in my blog about cutting out or down on vices and using the money to help a friend might offend.
Today, someone was worried that my constant concern with avoiding generalizations by specifying that I was taking a US-perspective might offend others.
I appreciate all of the concern that these individuals have expressed because helping friends is important to me. That said, however, I have the right to offend others. Just as some may be offended by what I say, others may be impressed that I had the nerve to say it.
Branding
In Ecademy, we hear a lot about branding. Well, branding is not about blending it.
It is about stepping up, grabbing the bull by the horns, saying what one believes is right, and accepting the consequences for one’s actions. In short, it is about daring to do what one believes is right.
Branding is consistent with our legal history in the United States. Let’s consider some of the cases in which people dared to stand out for things for which people in Ecademy could be banned.
Legal Rulings
On December 16, 1965, Mary Beth Tinker, a 13 year old junior high school student and a 16 year old student high school student, Christopher Eckhardt, wore black armbands to class in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest the U. S. policy in Vietnam. The next day, December 17, 1965, Mary Beth’s brother, John, wore a black arm band as well. All three students were suspended from school until such a time as they were willing to come to school without the armbands. Their parents sued. In Tinker v. Des Moines School District, the United States Supreme Court held that passive and silent conduct in the form of wearing armbands to school was entirely consistent with the free speech clause of the first amendment of the United States Constitution. The case may be found here.
On April 26, 1968, Paul Robert Cohen wore a coat on which the words “Fuck the Draft” were plainly visible in the Los Angeles County Courthouse as a means of expressing his deeply held beliefs regarding the draft. Mr. Cohen was convicted of disturbing the peace. His conviction was upheld by the court of appeals and so it was that Mr. Cohen’s appeal was heard by the US Supreme Court in 1971. The US Supreme Court held that the simple display of the word “Fuck” cannot be made criminal. Cohen v. California can be found here.
Over the years there were a variety of other cases. At the end of the day, we ended up in a situation where everything ends up in court, or as complaints in front of a federal agency. In fact, we end up with the November 6, 2006, rulings of the Federal Communication Commission. Between February 2, 2002, and March 8, 2005, a variety of complaints were filed with the Federal Communications Commission. A document that purports to be a summary of the rulings of the Federal Communications Commission rulings on these complaints can be found here.
Better Way
On the one hand, I hear Ecademy wanting to be a nice place for us to get to know people. On the other and, it seems to me that people are also being told not to be themselves. I hear so many express concern that they might be banned for what they say. I see others self-monitoring or encouraging people to “be careful not to offend someone.”
I believe there must be a better way. It seems to me that, while we might like the discussion to be nice, it is more relevant from a business perspective for people to be allowed to be themselves. Is it right that people have been banned for expressing their views, asking questions, or engaging in robust communication using words that one can find in any dictionary? What value is a compliment, if an insult or criticism is impossible?
Technorati (All Links are external): arm band black armbands brother john bull by the horns business perspective c davis commission county courthouse cutting out dictionary disturbing the peace ecademy eckhardt february 2 federal communication commission federal communications free speech clause freedom of speech generalizations junior high school legal history mary beth moines iowa mr cohen networking purports robert cohen states supreme court tinker v des moines tinker v des moines school district united states constitution us supreme court vices business general leadership management
Coleen Davis wrote this great article. There is some focus on the networking site Ecademy - but I think this article has value everywhere.
Published with permission from C. Davis.
© C. Davis
We often hear about the freedom of speech and see conflicts between it and the code of conduct in Ecademy. The supplier’s code of conduct tells us that certain topics are ones that we are not allowed to discuss. It is fine to compliment the supplier, but not to criticize or provide constructive feedback for. Such imbalance leads to negative results in every situation that I have encountered.
Complex Issue
On the one hand, I feel strongly that in business it is appropriate and important to keep a professional tone. On the other hand, I refuse to be told what, where, how, when, why, or whom I should say something. If I feel like cursing, that is my right.
Along with the nearly absolute right to free speech, comes the nearly absolute responsibility and accountability for what I do say. Some potential customers may be offended by what I choose to say. Potential partners may choose not to work with me because I choose to exercise my rights. Suppliers, such as Ecademy, might choose not to do business with me as well. These are risks that I and each of us take when we choose to say what we feel is appropriate.
Consequences
Are we to give words so much power over us that they cannot be used? What are the consequences of doing so? In business, one hears words like hell, damn, fuck, ass, and bitch. While I am not a fan of inappropriate use of these or other words, I support the rights of adults to be treated as responsible adults. When we refuse to use words for fear that we will offend, we get results like two that I experienced this week…
Yesterday, someone was worried that the word “vices” in my blog about cutting out or down on vices and using the money to help a friend might offend.
Today, someone was worried that my constant concern with avoiding generalizations by specifying that I was taking a US-perspective might offend others.
I appreciate all of the concern that these individuals have expressed because helping friends is important to me. That said, however, I have the right to offend others. Just as some may be offended by what I say, others may be impressed that I had the nerve to say it.
Branding
In Ecademy, we hear a lot about branding. Well, branding is not about blending it.
It is about stepping up, grabbing the bull by the horns, saying what one believes is right, and accepting the consequences for one’s actions. In short, it is about daring to do what one believes is right.
Branding is consistent with our legal history in the United States. Let’s consider some of the cases in which people dared to stand out for things for which people in Ecademy could be banned.
Legal Rulings
On December 16, 1965, Mary Beth Tinker, a 13 year old junior high school student and a 16 year old student high school student, Christopher Eckhardt, wore black armbands to class in Des Moines, Iowa, to protest the U. S. policy in Vietnam. The next day, December 17, 1965, Mary Beth’s brother, John, wore a black arm band as well. All three students were suspended from school until such a time as they were willing to come to school without the armbands. Their parents sued. In Tinker v. Des Moines School District, the United States Supreme Court held that passive and silent conduct in the form of wearing armbands to school was entirely consistent with the free speech clause of the first amendment of the United States Constitution. The case may be found here.
On April 26, 1968, Paul Robert Cohen wore a coat on which the words “Fuck the Draft” were plainly visible in the Los Angeles County Courthouse as a means of expressing his deeply held beliefs regarding the draft. Mr. Cohen was convicted of disturbing the peace. His conviction was upheld by the court of appeals and so it was that Mr. Cohen’s appeal was heard by the US Supreme Court in 1971. The US Supreme Court held that the simple display of the word “Fuck” cannot be made criminal. Cohen v. California can be found here.
Over the years there were a variety of other cases. At the end of the day, we ended up in a situation where everything ends up in court, or as complaints in front of a federal agency. In fact, we end up with the November 6, 2006, rulings of the Federal Communication Commission. Between February 2, 2002, and March 8, 2005, a variety of complaints were filed with the Federal Communications Commission. A document that purports to be a summary of the rulings of the Federal Communications Commission rulings on these complaints can be found here.
Better Way
On the one hand, I hear Ecademy wanting to be a nice place for us to get to know people. On the other and, it seems to me that people are also being told not to be themselves. I hear so many express concern that they might be banned for what they say. I see others self-monitoring or encouraging people to “be careful not to offend someone.”
I believe there must be a better way. It seems to me that, while we might like the discussion to be nice, it is more relevant from a business perspective for people to be allowed to be themselves. Is it right that people have been banned for expressing their views, asking questions, or engaging in robust communication using words that one can find in any dictionary? What value is a compliment, if an insult or criticism is impossible?
Tags:
arm band black armbands brother john bull by the horns business perspective c davis commission county courthouse cutting out dictionary disturbing the peace ecademy eckhardt february 2 federal communication commission federal communications free speech clause freedom of speech generalizations junior high school legal history mary beth moines iowa mr cohen networking purports robert cohen states supreme court tinker v des moines tinker v des moines school district united states constitution us supreme court vicesTechnorati (All Links are external): arm band black armbands brother john bull by the horns business perspective c davis commission county courthouse cutting out dictionary disturbing the peace ecademy eckhardt february 2 federal communication commission federal communications free speech clause freedom of speech generalizations junior high school legal history mary beth moines iowa mr cohen networking purports robert cohen states supreme court tinker v des moines tinker v des moines school district united states constitution us supreme court vices business general leadership management
This blog-entry is protected by a digital fingerprint:785273ed81985582c8a1be62f78c9459
