Larry D. Lauer

Once again we have questions emerge about freedom of speech in a digital world. First in Paris with terrorist attacks on a magazine which was exercising its freedom to publish cartoons offensive to Muslims,  and now in Garland, Texas with an art exhibition.

In Texas the situation was an invitation to artists to exhibit their work, even if their images  were offensive to Muslims. For some it was a matter of defending their right to express whatever they want whenever they want. One artist said he only decided to show his work after he heard that extreme Islamists said he could not. But for others holding this event at all was simply a matter of bad judgment. It would amount to a challenge to extremists and a danger to the lives of innocent people.

Freedom of speech today operates in a world where digital media produces powerful emotional images and instant international threats. In such a new world should the intent and potential consequences of free speech be reexamined? For example:

*Is freedom of speech absolute?

*Does one person’s freedom permit endangering the lives of others?

*Do extremist groups such as ISIS calling for “lone wolf” attacks in countries constitute a “clear and present danger” enough to impose certain temporary restrictions?

*Or, should there be stronger public appeals for individuals to volunteer speech restrictions during such periods of danger.

As a communication consultant I would advise a “client” to let good judgment about safety override absolute speech freedom during those times when lives are clearly in danger. The digital world is a totally new and hostile one with the capacity to instantly ignite violence.

In such a world it is not at all contradictory to simultaneously assert a strong belief in the freedom of expression while at the same time suspending it temporarily for the sake of public safety.