Freedom of speech gives us the right to protest and say whatever we are thinking. Many think this also includes the right to ignore current health warnings: “I have the right to risk my health and go anywhere I want without a mask.“
If risking one’s health threatens the health of others, what happens to the others’ rights? Doesn’t some kind of “hybrid” way forward seem necessary in situations like this? In other words, shouldn’t the idea of the “greater good” take over? But for this there is an important requirement: A genuine leader who is transparent, empathetic, and trustworthy. Instead, sadly, we have a president thoroughly obsessed with his own re-election.
But, there is also one more big requirement: Our 24/7 digital world created a permanent state of information-saturated confusion… a truth hiding daily mental fog which causes many people to reject expertise and align with political extremists who promise to take care of everything. And what’s more, we are learning that autocrats thrive in this kind of media-produced fog. It is therefore absolutely necessary that Internet consequences, and not just social media skills, be taught in schools and discussed in community groups all over the world.
Good article especially the point about how exercising one’s right to expression can affect the rights of others.
Yes sir – 1st amendment does not protect dangerous speech
You can’t yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre
Seems to me advocating in a way that jeopardizes public health = dangerous speech
Dennis Scifres
817 239-0600
Sent from my iPhone