Quote from a protester in Chicago, “Free speech is protected, hate speech is not.”

And yet, in regard to the 1st amendment, that statement is actually not a true assessment. Personally, I would not speak with “hateful speech” and yet the first amendment protects even the most ridiculous (or hateful) speech. Even what I disagree with, both in speech and depiction, it covers the gamut…and in a free society, it honestly must.

Just to be clear, I am not promoting any kind of divisive speech, not at all, not ever. I am simply stating that it is a birthright in America, for any and all speech to be offered in a free society.

Additionally, we can never stand for violence. Some say that provocative speech insights violence. However, freedom of speech and freedom of expression do not allow for a shutting down of speech altogether or violence in any form. If it does, those prone to violence are using their own definition of “hate speech” to respond hatefully. It is absolutely opposite for the Christian. Turning the other cheek is not simply a suggested response, it speaks to our posture of always responding in love by grace. It is not being passive, for we know the kingdom confronts the systems of the world, yet it is the opportunity to use our voice to bring peace to a situation, responding in love, the upside-down kingdom way.

Growing up in Pender County, a rural county which also has a coastal section including Topsail Island and Surf City in southeastern NC, I had a great desire for the good of the environment from an early age. As a sophomore, I was introduced to the opportunity of exercising my first amendment right as I, along with many others, protested our commissioners, as they were weighing the option to bring a large incinerator to our county. I even made the local news as I petitioned with a “no incinerator” sign in hand, and offered my voice into the dialogue. I believe in free speech. I believe in petition. These beliefs are also backed by the constitution. However, we cannot agree for speech we may not agree with to be silenced.

Let’s  also consider this: for Christians, much of our core beliefs some may deem “hate speech.” For example, proclaiming that Jesus is the only Way to God. He is “the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no man comes to the Father but by Me” [meaning Jesus] – quoting Jesus.

However some followers of other religions or perspectives may consider this hateful.

Personally, this is my core belief and one that I proclaim & offer in love. Consider however, if others disagreed, and are also Americans bearing 1st amendment rights, they would also have the opportunity to speak their own minds or opinions, as would I. However, if we were to only go by what the protester quoted above (that deemed “hateful speech” is non-protected speech) then this could be a problem as some may consider this truth and foundation of my faith, hateful, perhaps even blasphemous against another’s religion. Although it is not, simply it is freely giving and sharing the good news of Jesus, they may have a perspective that it is hate-filled and under the quoted protester’s logic, not protected.

Additionally, I have some close friends, who in their own personal ministry, tackle culturally sensitive topics from a heart of love and inclusion. They, in offering their voice for life and in defense of the unborn, often encounter opposing viewpoints which suggest that those offering a scriptural perspective are offering so as “hate speech” and would, under this fallacy, be unprotected or even silenced. Friends, the term “slippery slope” is not my first choice, but it seems could be a proper description, and perhaps we are currently seeing the fruit of this wrong assumption regarding speech, particularly in America.

To be clear, I’m not advocating Christian Nationalism. We recognize that we are pilgrims in this land and that our hope is firmly anchored in the ages yet to come, believing and longing for the day in which Jesus is fully revealed. Yet, I also believe that it is the Lord who “establishes the boundaries of our habitation” and we do in fact, have the opportunity under the constitution to offer our voices and the good news of the gospel freely.

I have included an excerpt from one of my favorite “voices” (although simply a television character) Julia Sugarbaker aka: “the terminator.” She speaks her mind consistently and in this particular script defends the first amendment while also challenging it for covering pornography. (Something I too consider hate-filled against women.) I am presenting this because in my lifetime, how incredible it would be to see people freed from these entanglements and for women to be honored rather than subjected, but also to offer perspective – that being, in what one considers hateful, another considers acceptable. Of course in the below fictional dialogue there is opportunity for discussion and even for civil disobedience or protest. Julia makes the point, that speech, even despicable and vile, is still protected, while at the same time protesting pornography.

——

From Season 3 of the TV show Designing Women: Julia Drives Over the First Amendment

Julia: “Do you honestly believe that a person has a constitutional right to depict a poster of a woman degraded, chained up in a dog-collar and whipped? You couldn’t depict a black man that way because it would be considered incendiary speech. So why would we demand any less for women? The first amendment is designed to protect political speech and everybody knows it.”

[And a second scene in which she confronts Terry Wilder – a woman who depicts women in violence through the vehicle of a pornographic magazine company.]

“Terry: Just so you know Mrs. Sugarbaker, this is still America, and free speech will always be protected.

Julia: I know it will. But pornography won’t always be, Miss Wilder. This country will let the Nazis speak, and the Ku Klux Klansmen speak because as despicable as their statements are, they are speaking their mind. But when you publish your magazine, you’re not speaking your mind. You’d shut that magazine down tomorrow if it weren’t turning a profit. You know it and I know it. Pornography is not free speech, it’s commerce. Otherwise you couldn’t zone it out of certain nice areas of the city.

Terry: Well, I see I am getting nowhere. We’re both business women. Let’s just leave it at that. I won’t bother you, and you won’t bother me.

Julia: No, that’s not quite right, Miss Wilder. You bother me very much. I know I can be sanctimonious and self-righteous, but nevertheless I’ve just gotta say it. Shame on you for calling yourself a feminist. And shame on you for hurting and demeaning women everywhere — all for a lousy nickel.

——

Here we see that Julia is also using her first amendment right to protest the magazine and to speak her mind. It is an interesting and complex dichotomy and yet, the simple truth is we each have a voice to offer. I have also witnessed the phenomenon on social media where many share their deep disgust if someone offers an opinion or voice into a matter. Yes, perhaps we all offer too much, too often and with too strong a perspective. But again, often it is more speech not less, which lends itself to freedom. Interestingly also, scripture encourages us to be “slow to speak.” How we respond to any speech is honestly between us and God, and is something we may ponder and pray about first. Additionally, what we choose to “weigh in” on is something we want to be Spirit-led and grace-filled, out of a heart of love.

Freedom of speech matters. It matters for every voice, no matter how vile or how liberating. Perhaps more times that not we may fully disagree with what is shared. Yet if our voices don’t speak, and also advocate for speech, especially when we do in this hour in America, have the availability to (protected by the 1st amendment) what will come of our day? In our generation will we relinquish our voice?

#everyvoicematters #offeryourvoice #offerlove