Responsible Speech

Most Americans subscribe to the principle of Freedom of Speech, and many believe that Freedom entails Responsibility. And yet, the entailed notion of Responsible Speech seems to have occurred to hardly anybody. An understanding of what that notion might entail can begin with an appreciation of the persistence, even these days, around the world of political or religious dissent being suppressed, for it is this kind of speech that America's Founding Father's regarded as essential to a healthy Democracy, and, hence, as deserving of clearly articulated protective measures. John Stuart Mill expanded on this attitude by pointing out that any divergent opinion contains a core of truth, and, so is of potential value to the general good. These references to 'truth' and 'general good' suggest some of what constitutes responsible speech. First, there should be a respect for facts. Second, any expression of an opinion should be preceded by adequate deliberation. Third, one's own incorrectness and the correctness of an opponent should always be acknowledged and accepted. Fourth, no opinion should be taken as unimpeachably final. Finally, public speech should be about public matters, about objective concerns, not a mere venting of personal spleen. Plainly, most of what passes for 'public discourse' in America these days--trash-talk, disingenuous spin-doctoring, ad hominem attacks--hardly qualifies as responsible speech. As a one-time unsuccessful presidential candidate once put it, 'the rot starts at the head'. In other words, the inculcation of a general commitment to responsible speech will have to start with exemplary political leadership.