For my 800th blogpost, I’ve chosen to address a moral principle that underpins most of what I write about in my blog. Without this standard, I’d likely choose not to express my views to the world.
A principle may be defined as a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption which serves as a rule or code of conduct. As well, not always are these rules based on rationality – in accordance with logic and reason.
For instance, I was raised with the principle of males being required to always remove decorative hats (e.g., ball cap) when indoors. It was irrationally considered rude not to abide by this principle. To understand the logic of this arbitrary rule, consider the following syllogism:
Form (modus ponens) –
If p, then q; p; therefore, q.
Example –
If I remove my hat when indoors, then I display good manners.
I remove my hat when indoors.
Therefore, I display good manners.
When considering a moral principle of this sort – determination of what is good, bad, or otherwise – one source draws the following distinction:
· Absolute principles are unchanging and universal. They are based on universal truths about the nature of human beings. For example, murder is wrong because it goes against the natural order of things. These are also sometimes called normative moral principles or those that are generally accepted by society.
· Relative principles change depending on the situation. They are based on opinions and circumstances that may change over time, from person to person, or for different situations. Relative moral principles depend on a person's beliefs, relative to what people perceive as good or bad in relation to themselves. In other words, when someone says something is good, in most cases, they are really saying it is good for them or perhaps it contributes to their well-being.
The principle of removing decorative hats indoors is representative of a relative moral principle. And while it’s syllogistically sound (logical), it isn’t reasonable (doesn’t make sense without context). Therefore, without both logic and reason supporting it, this relative principle is irrational.
Although people from nations other than the United States (U.S.) may argue that free speech isn’t an absolute, universal, or normative moral principle, I value this code of conduct as though it ostensibly is. Nevertheless, I’m not a “free speech absolutist” and I recognize that free expression has its limitations, as one source reports:
Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, for example, yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater where no fire exists, blasphemy and perjury.
One quibble I have with the description offered by this source relates to hate speech. Regarding the Matal v. Tam decision ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito stated:
Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
Additionally, a separate source adds:
There is no legal definition of “hate speech” under U.S. law, just as there is no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn. Generally, however, hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin.
In the United States, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. Courts extend this protection on the grounds that the First Amendment requires the government to strictly protect robust debate on matters of public concern even when such debate devolves into distasteful, offensive, or hateful speech that causes others to feel grief, anger, or fear. (The Supreme Court’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps provides an example of this legal reasoning.) Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group.
An example of inciting imminent criminal activity would be if in the presence of person Y—a Jewish person, person X yells to a crowd, “C’mon, everyone, let’s kill that kike bastard, person Y,” as the angry mob then commits the act of criminal homicide following the call to violent action on the basis of ethnic or religious status.
While the First Amendment has limitations, I don’t take issue with a person classifying it as either an absolute or relative moral principle. In any case, I value it as a virtually absolute rule regarding how I choose to live my life.
Noteworthy, free speech is a negative right. This means it obliges inaction. In other words, in a state of nature, one is born with an inalienable right to free speech. Therefore, no one should, must, or ought to take this right from you.
Because negative rights exist unless someone acts to negate them, it’s generally understood that the U.S. government shall not infringe upon or act to negate one’s freedom of expression. Thus, the government serves to protect this negative right.
Unfortunately, this principled stance on free speech has been eroded by the very political side of the aisle that reportedly most upholds First Amendment protections – Republicans, conservatives, the Right, etc. I’ve addressed this concern elsewhere within my blog.
For instance, one source reports, “The Antisemitism Awareness Act would see the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism for the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws regarding education programs.”
In regard to free speech protections, I reject such erosion of negative rights. This doesn’t mean I’m an anti-Semite or that I hate Jewish people. Rather, I value the freedom of expression as a moral principle.
Similar to my opposition to regressive actions taken in protection of some groups (e.g., Jewish people) rather than other groups (e.g., white people); I’ve observed additional behavior which I challenge. Since when was it not permissible to celebrate violent action against one’s political rivals?
While I don’t take part in such celebration, as I denounce political violence, I support the free speech of others who celebrate in such a manner. As an example, I honored Hillary Clinton’s right to cheer when Muammar Qaddafi was assassinated, even though I found her behavior repugnant.
This is because I take a principled stance on free speech. With this understanding, I’ve observed many people lamenting the fact that the apparent assassination attempt of Donald Trump was unsuccessful. I consider such behavior obnoxious.
Nevertheless, I support the right of people to freely express themselves. Still, there are people who perceivably value trampling the right to free speech. For instance, consider that one source states:
Every single society in human history has a form of “cancel culture.” Stigmas—and social consequences for violating them—are the basis of civilization itself. The debate isn’t over whether “cancel culture” should exist. (It should). It’s over which things should be cancelled.
…in response to one individual stating:
Being against “cancel culture” matters most when you have the power to cancel. As the political Right gains more cultural and political power, it’s important to remain principled.
I support the latter principled stance and reject the former argument. The position in support of cancel culture, presumably regarding free speech, represents what is known in Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) as demandingness.
It’s essentially as though one self-disturbingly demands, “People absolutely shouldn’t say things with which I disagree and if they do, they should be canceled!” I reject this notion, oppose such action, and dispute irrational beliefs of this sort.
Regarding such affronts to a principled stance on free speech, I value what lyricist Brother Ali said in his song “Forest Whitiker,” “And yo, whatever comes up comes out. We don’t put our hands over our mouth.”
All the same, I support the right of fallible human beings to express views with which I disagree. In fact, I’d like more free speech and less canceling of disagreeable opinions so that I can know who believes in this or that stance.
For those who take issue with my perspective, I offer you additional lyrics to “Forest Whitiker”:
I’mma be all right, you ain’t gotta be my friend tonight
(You ain’t gotta love me)
And I’mma be okay, you would probably bore me anyway
(You ain’t gotta love me)
If you’re looking for a provider who works to help you understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As the world’s foremost old school hip hop REBT psychotherapist, I’m pleased to help people with an assortment of issues from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply helping you to feel better, I want to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
118th Congress. (2023, October 26). H.R. 6090. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr6090/BILLS-118hr6090ih.pdf
American Library Association. (n.d.). Hate speech and hate crime. Retrieved from https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/hate
Brother Ali. (2020, June 3). Forest Whitiker [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/SQkXZeyQACM?si=tFtq95qYKmzWtAZM
Candid. (2022, January 7). Views on freedom of speech vary by political affiliation, survey finds. Philanthropy News Digest. Retrieved from https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/views-on-freedom-of-speech-vary-by-political-affiliation-survey-finds
CBS. (2011, October 20). Clinton on Qaddafi: We came, we saw, he died [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI?si=Bkhn6E0jLqerI9W_
Cuncic, A. (2024, May 20). Types of moral principles and examples of each. Verywell Mind. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-are-moral-principles-5198602
Hochman, N. [@njhochman]. (2024, July 17). Every single society in human history has a form of “cancel culture.” Stigmas—and social consequences for violating them—are the basis of civilization itself […] [Post]. X. Retrieved from https://x.com/njhochman/status/1813637446846017866
Hollings, D. (2024, July 9). Absolutistic should beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/absolutistic-should-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2022, October 31). Demandingness. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/demandingness
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Fair use. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fair-use
Hollings, D. (2024, May 11). Fallible human being. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/fallible-human-being
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2024, July 14). Measure twice, cut once. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/measure-twice-cut-once
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2023, April 24). On truth. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-truth
Hollings, D. (2024, May 26). Principles. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/principles
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2022, October 7). Should, must, and ought. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/should-must-and-ought
Hollings, D. (2023, October 17). Syllogism. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/syllogism
Hollings, D. (2024, April 28). Talkin’ all that jazz. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/talkin-all-that-jazz
Katersky, A., Date, J., Margolin, J., Thomas, P., and Shalvey, K. (2024, July 18). Trump rally gunman purportedly left message on gaming platform before shooting: Sources. ABC News. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-assassination-attempt-trump-motive-investigation-phone-suspect/story?id=112057259
Sprunt, B. (2024, May 2). House passes bill aimed to combat antisemitism amid college unrest. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2024/05/02/1247374244/house-passes-bill-aimed-to-combat-antisemitism-amid-college-unrest
Supreme Court of the United States. (2017, June 19). Matal v. Tam. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
Wayhomestudio. (n.d.). Waist up shot of shocked surprised women cover mouth with both hands [Image]. Freepik. Retrieved from https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/waist-up-shot-shocked-surprised-women-cover-mouth-with-both-hands_10584913.htm#from_view=detail_alsolike
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Brother Ali. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Ali
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Donald Trump. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Freedom of speech. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Hillary Clinton. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Muammar Qaddafi. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Qaddafi
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Negative and positive rights. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Samuel Alito. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Snyder v. Phelps. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps
Comments