The Jambar
The nation’s current sociopolitical climate has most people questioning the strength and proper exercise of the First Amendment — and what it actually means to have open conversations.
The First Amendment states the government will not create laws to restrict the press, how we speak, how we assemble, practice religion and petition the government. This law is the basis of freedom of the press.
With the discourse surrounding free speech, many media practitioners are wary, and rightly so, about how the discourse will pan out. They are cautious about what unwritten boundaries around speech now exist and how that may affect them.
To the point of open conversations, the definition varies based on context and participants. There are certain instances that restrict, by law, the openness of discussions. In this instance, it is conversations discussed between fellow countrymen surrounding social and current issues.
These exchanges require amicable, open-mindedness and understanding. One cannot just say what they believe and not offer space for others to do the same. Yes, that is the right to free speech, but is the other person allowed to also exercise their right?
Yes, some speech is gravely inflammatory, but unless it falls under the categories of speech not protected by law, they are within their right to say it. Whether or not they have reason to do so, however, is another question.
That’s the other thing about open conversations, are we speaking with an understanding that the other person is human and has the same range of emotions as we do? A lot of topics around social issues and policies involve real people. Depending on the issue in question, sometimes it is spoken about without care or empathy.
That is where these discussions go awry, and the participants must take accountability for their part in eliciting the varied responses. People can speak about the policy abstractly, but if someone mentions how it affects real Individuals, it cannot be dismissed.
In the spirit of fair, open and honest conversations, the responsibility is on each participant to listen and hear what is being said — not solely to respond, but to understand. These are fellow humans — speaking about their current or possible condition abstractly, not considering the consequences for them — does not strengthen the argument.
Rather, it decreases validity, brings into question humanness and disqualifies any further arguments made about empathy without reciprocality.
Now, this is all said if one chooses to actively engage in civil discourse. If people have no intentions of engaging with those whose speech they find repugnant, they have exercised free will. That argument has no weight over them, and they can express frustrations with said speech in a lawful manner.
However, if someone chooses to engage honestly and respectfully, they have to see it through to the end knowing then that it may not end how they intend. Additionally, if people are engaged to understand, they may learn something useful or guide others’ interactions.