Irresponsible expression of emotions equated with free speech

1. In recent decades a change has come over the rules of discourse whereby the marshalling of logic and evidence has lost its prestige. In its place right feeling and good intentions have come to reign as the highest intellectual values and the persuasive earnests of high seriousness. This it was first asserted by a few, and then accepted by many, that the capacity to reason on a subject was less valuable than the bringing to bear of one's political convictions, one's gender experience, or one's social status. The rules of proof, reason and logic are suspended in certain privileged forms of discourse with socio-political implications.

2. Concerned groups frequently find themselves unable to translate the social conflicts in which they are involved into effective dialogues. By reducing complex situations to single issues, by emotional and violent outbursts, and by hysterical relating of issues to individual situations, the form and quality of the dialogue become secondary to the entertainment or therapeutic value for the speakers. Free speech is seen as an indulgence for an emotive elite rather than the responsibility of every member of the citizenry.

3. Another aspect of the contradiction in what is usually considered free speech is to be seen in a collapse of systems for verbal exchange. This is frequently seen in the irresponsible spewing of poorly thought out feelings. A healthy dynamic of free speech would not only afford the right of all to speak, even irresponsibly, but also encourage people to speak responsibly and significantly. Consciously aware systems of dialogue are necessary for everyone to be able to understand the responsibilities inherent in the exercise of free speech, and to allow the articulation of concerns in such a manner as to gain an attentive audience. This would in turn make each individual aware of what it means to speak on behalf everyone.