Freedom of speech has no criticism clause

Mike Cahalan (“State shouldn't be polishing public speech,” March 29 letter) misunderstands the idea of free speech, as if the right to free speech guarantees that one can say whatever they want and be free from criticism.

Cahalan complains about government and Hollywood campaigns to reduce inappropriate speech, “Like the R-word and the N-word.” There is a vast difference between pointing out inappropriate language and requesting that people limit it of their own free will and an actual prohibition. The former is democracy, a community voicing its own beliefs about the shape of our discourse, while the latter is censorship. We should not mistake one for the other and be clear that no one in Hollywood or the government is proposing any measure of prohibition.

Yes, the right to free speech is an absolute, no matter how wrong or disturbing others may find it. But free speech also means we have the right to criticize your speech, to point out when we believe it is inappropriate or irresponsible and request that you reconsider such speech in the future. That's civil discourse, not censorship. Just because you have the right to say something, doesn't actually make it right to do so.

Glenn Freeman

Mount Vernon