The Safety Rules of Free Speech

 When I was a younger man, I loved to shoot targets. On our family’s property is a dry creek bed that’s the perfect place to shoot, except for one time a year (keep reading…). As I took aim at my cardboard box target, something felt weird, but I couldn’t place it. I shook it off, and commenced firing. About 10 minutes into my session, a truck comes hauling down into the creek bed, and a distant cousin comes barreling down on me. He says, “Hey moron! Don’t you know it’s DEER SEASON. YOU COULD HAVE KILLED ME!” Realizing he was behind my cardboard box, I immediately felt inches tall, and hastily packed up. I had violated the Four Safety Rules, and I was indeed, a moron.

Every firearm owner must know the Four Safety Rules. Often abbreviated as “TNKK”, the four rules are: 1) Treat every weapon as if it were loaded, 2) Never point the muzzle at something you do not intend to destroy, 3) Keep your finger straight and off the trigger, and 4) Keep your weapon on safe until you intend to fire. Some add a 5^th rule about knowing your target and what’s beyond it, and that might have saved me from the dangerous and embarrassing situation described above. As I learned the hard way (despite my pre-existing familiarity with the rules) these rules are not negotiable and if you own a gun and do not practice them, you are ignorant and dangerous. Why are the gun owners such jerks about TNKK? Why would I dare to assert some negativity against you if you don’t know them? Because if you violate these rules, you can kill someone. I could have. I wouldn’t even say “accidentally” as I didn’t accidentally ignore the rules; it was a conscious choice. It’s the same conscious choice that people make when they ignore the rules of Free Speech. Yes, as a matter of fact, they do exist, just as formally informal as TNKK. As Dwight from the sitcom The Office would say, “learn your rules, you better learn your rules…”

The rules of Free Speech are centered around respect for your fellow humans. No one should speak detriment to another person unless that person has truly earned it. When a prosecutor stands before a jury to demand justice, they don’t peddle farce. They speak the truth based upon their perspective of the evidence. They are expert crafters of perception, but are careful not to tell a lie. Each of us should learn these skills to become safely persuasive, and below are the rules that should bind freedom of speech.

1. Facts matter. The truth of things that actually transpired is essential. Most news sources now thrive on creating outrage, and they plainly and flatly lie to our faces. This is not acceptable, and violates the first rule.
2. Reserve harm for the guilty. If the first rule is true, then it can be applied to the second. Words are dangerous. Words can and do kill people. If you intend to wield words against someone, the facts must line up, and they must be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you’re not sure, then forget what you were about to say.
3. Never assume infallibility. If you demand of those around you that they ignore your errors, you are choosing ignorance and peddling lies.
4. Communicating has consequences. There is no action that does not produce an equal an opposite reaction. All actions have consequences, including the act of speaking or writing. If you do not understand the consequences of your communication, do not speak or write it.
5. Question everything. Learn by asking questions. Believe nothing until you’ve exhausted yourself trying to determine its truth. Many people are nefarious, and a permanent questioning attitude exposes them. If a source demands that you believe blindly, they are a fool and should never again have your attention. Demand adherence to Rule 1 by asking questions not to expose the lies, but to expose the truth.

Look at the rules in context by applying them to an example from the Supreme Court of the United States.

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is a common example, albeit a pretty simple one. Even though the malice is contained in the “to cause a panic” action, its genesis is the speech, and the malice can be avoided by following the rules.  Rule 1: there is no fire, so don’t say there is. You can stop there.  But for argument’s sake, look to Rule 2: who could be harmed by this exclamation? Were they an arsonist, it wouldn’t be in this case, as there’s no fire. Rule 3: Don’t assume that if you yell fire, that people will believe you later when it’s determined there was no fire. Rule 4: If you decide to falsely accuse fire of the murder your words committed, understand that the facts will condemn you, and you will face consequences. Rule 5 applies more to those sitting in the theater. Do you smell smoke or see fire? Who said there was a fire? Does the fire seem out of control? Where is the fire? Can you offer any help? …the list can go on as far as your imagination will take it.

If these rules are true and must be followed, doesn’t that mean that Free Speech is being restricted or even *gasp* censored? Does following the Four Safety Rules for firearms restrict the right to firearm ownership? No, but violating them certainly can.