Speaking freely

We are reminded constantly that we have freedom of speech in this country. As a journalist, I've experienced multiple doses of those reminders throughout my career. As a journalism teacher, I used to tell my students that we have the right of free speech, but along with that right, comes a responsibility with how we use it.

I firmly believe that the double R's of free speech go hand in hand. Along those same lines, I reminded students that if they wanted to criticize people publicly, criticize the act, not the person, which is easier said than done sometimes.

I just finished writing a short commentary on a Spokesman-Review blog about some observations I'd made in this morning's "In Life" section. Using a humorous approach, I led up to a bit of information that appeared in the "Looking Back" feature. Several times a week, the paper publishes old photos from the Inland Northwest area. I love this feature and always read the cutlines.

In my mind, today's photo was rather humorous, not only for the expressions on the faces of Spokane's Pioneer Society but also for some of the names: Ida May, Mindora and Elmer stood next to Daniel. Folks these days just don't name their kids like they did back in the late 1800s. What really took my interest, however, was that Elmer was identified as a "veteran Indian fighter." So, I posed the question in my commentary, "Would the paper receive some feedback for including a 'veteran Indian fighter' among the society folks?

This observation in our politically correct society reminds me one more time that we tread a very thin line these days with our "freedom of speech." This week, William Bennett, our former Secretary of Education and author of The Book of Virtues (which I happen to covet here at my house) got caught suggesting that if Blacks had more abortions, the crime rate would go down. I was aghast that he would say such a thing. Later, he explained that he was using a hypothetical situation to make a point.

I don't know all the details of his situation, but I do know that people are ready to pounce these days whenever anything---in context or out---comes from the lips of someone of importance. I remember first reading about political correctness in a Newsweek article about 15 years ago. It was just being introduced to the American scene, and I wondered if we would really go so far as to have the "thought police" monitoring our every word.

A few years ago, I also remember poring over old school papers from our high school, where back in the 1940s, the derisive, nasty terms used in reference to Blacks and Japanese shocked me. These were printed in a high school newspaper where students did the writing and an adult adviser closely monitored what appeared in the paper. I also remember a column written the high school paper in the late '40s where staff members were allowed to make inhumane remarks about a student who happened to have a bad case of acne. I thought that was reprehensible.

In some cases, what we read in print reflects a historical context. Maybe that's why the "veteran Indian fighter" appeared in today's paper---much like Mark Twain's use of the word "Nigger" in his classic Huckleberry Finn. I do wonder, however, with the sensitivities that seem to be so prominent in our current society, if all readers will appreciate today's photo. I also am interested to learn more about William Bennett's comments----in full context----to see if he was using an absurd example to support an argument about another absurd situation.

All in all, it's obvious that we need to be careful and sensitive with what comes out of our mouths and what lands in print from our minds. I guess the best guideline goes back to those basic principles that I taught to my young journalists: use your right responsibly, and criticize the act, not the person. It's an interesting question for discussion. We just have to be careful what we say in the discussion.