Mood: I'm trying so hard to be happy ...
Music: None. :(
Mind: Completely, totally out of sorts.

My brother-in-law, Matthew, drew the ire of several people in an online community a couple of days ago when he criticized one of their members in a private chat. The moderators decided to act, and he has been banned from the community for a week so things can be sorted out. The administrators also banned the IP of the University, and some wanted to ban the IP shared by Paul and myself, just in case Matthew decided to use one of our computers. Fortunately, we were saved by an admin with his head on straight.

Matthew and I are close, but in this case I believe that it's not my place to take sides on who's right or wrong. It's his battle to fight. However, it gives me a chance to talk about what I feel is the bigger issue at stake.

As a journalist, my thoughts on freedom of speech are a little bit skewed from the general population. I mean, the First Amendment is the document that makes America completely American. In 46 words, each citizen of this country is granted five pretty heavy rights: To peacefully gather in a group, to practice any religion, to seek information and publish news, to ask the government to listen to problems, and -- best of all -- to speak freely without fear of retaliation.

It's scary, but a lot of Americans believe that our right to the freedom of speech has gone too far. The Freedom Forum's State of the First Amendment 2002 Report found that nearly half of Americans think the First Amendment grants people too many rights. If you don't have a chance to download the report and read it yourself, check out David Waters' recent commentary in the Commercial Appeal. It does a pretty good job of summing up the details of the survey.

Now, before I go any further, I want to make it clear that the First Amendment does not guarantee everything that tumbles out of a person's mouth every time he opens it. For example, it is not within my rights to pose immediate danger to others. I cannot angrily proclaim that I'm going to bomb Building XYZ at midnight tomorrow, unless I want to be taken into custody and put on trial. But I can speak, discuss, debate -- and, yes, even threaten -- any person, place or policy in freedom, as long that person, place or policy is not put into an immediate or overwhelming danger.

Whether you realize it or not, this gives every American citizen an amazing amount of personal power. It allows me to operate this blog and talk about anything I want over the Internet. It also allows Paul to tell prospective students on tour at The University of Memphis that they should attend some other college. Granted, that may not be the smartest thing for him to say, especially since he's a student himself. And it certainly doesn't gain a lot of favor from the (often-peeved) tour guides who shoot him dirty glances. But he's completely within his right to speak his mind on the University's public property.

When it comes to the First Amendment, a lot of Americans don't appreciate the guarantee of being offended by something said by somebody at some time. Personally, I don't like listening to Howard Stern on the radio, but I can't buck the First Amendment simply to get him off the air. Paul thinks that Dan Quayle is a bloomin' idiot, but Dan Quayle has the right to talk about Democrats, budget woes, and even the almighty potatoe, despite what people think.

Frankly, it amazes me that people are critical of the document that allows them to be critical. But the real tragedy comes when opening one's mouth becomes a matter of life and death. Have you ever heard of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? He was killed by the Nazis for saying a few things about Jewish rights that they weren't too eager to hear. If that's too obscure for you, you've probably heard of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Or Socrates. Or Jesus. It's not hard to find examples -- from history to yesterday's newspaper -- of people who fought with weapons instead of words.

It's a damn shame, too. When a person starts to listen to other opinions and ideas, especially ones he traditionally opposes, he can shape his own values from a greater base of knowledge. If things go as planned, each person can see things from somebody else's point of view. And in the worst case scenario, they agree to disagree, and life goes on.

Because each person has the right to speak freely, such disagreements are bound to happen often. The solution is not to clam up and give up. Instead, voice an opinion, but do so with a modicum of ethics and responsibility.

See, nobody has to ask, "Can I legally say this?" That decision was made 200 years ago, and it seems to be working pretty well. But in order for American citizens to regain their confidence in the First Amendment, every person must ask, "Is it responsible for me to say this?"

For example, it's not responsible for me to tell customers in my bookstore that a rival store across town has better prices and a greater selection. Likewise, it wouldn't be responsible for a chemist like Paul to put directions on the Internet on how to build a better bomb. Each of us has the freedom to do so, but that doesn't make it morally or ethically sound.

To get back to the case in point, Matthew is ultimately in the hands of the ArsClan administrators. It is their place to decide whether he should be permanently banned for what has apparently become a convolution of finger-pointing and placing blame.

The problem doesn't end if Matthew goes, and it doesn't end if he stays. Somebody else will say the same things in the future and the issue will be resurrected. Different faces, different places, but the same old arguments arise.

In the end, I hope the decision is both fair and far-reaching. Without a policy on acceptable speech, it becomes hard to enforce future infractions in the same vein. I just hope that any speech policy would take its cue from the First Amendment, an acknoledgement that it is a great freedom -- and a great responsibility -- to open one's mouth at all.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -S. G. Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire