Free Speech and Killer Statements

“No killer statements”, we agreed would be the first rule we would follow in our time together on a retreat with a group of teenagers and a few adult chaperones.  A killer statement was anything that was said that demeaned, dismissed, or denied someone else.  Our commitment to the rule stemmed from a recognition that a killer statement could not only destroy the fragile egos of young people who were valiantly trying to mature into adulthood, but could also grievously taint the integrity of the person making the statement.

Arriving at the rule was fairly straightforward.  Living it out was another matter, because everyone had witnessed – or had been trained, in the psychic economy of raising oneself up by putting someone else down.  And this was years before the internet, which has since become a vehicle for slashing and slandering one another.  Managing killer statements has become much harder.

As the list of indictments against former President Trump continue to grow, an ongoing debate has emerged between the sanctity and limit of free speech.  The proliferating commentary calls to mind the standard opening question by Senator Howard Baker to witnesses during the Watergate hearings: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”  Fifty years later, the question has evolved:  “What did the former President say on tape, on Truth Social, at a rally – and is he permitted to say it?”  The first amendment:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” is being dissected every day on more platforms than we ever knew we had. 

It is widely recognized that Mr. Trump weaves lies and killer statements together on a regular basis.  His pronouncements outrage some and energize others. Most people agree that his many put-downs and fabrications are ethical transgressions.  What is in dispute is whether or not they – and the actions they purportedly encourage, are illegal and warrant criminal and civil charges.

From my perspective, the first amendment gives people the freedom to express their pain.  The founders well knew that the first thing shut down in a totalitarian state is people’s freedom to tell their story of struggle, of injustice, of injury, of grief  – of pain.  They knew that suppression inevitably becomes oppression.  The first amendment was written to avoid that probability.

While the first amendment protects people’s ability to share their pain, it doesn’t say much, if anything, about the freedom to verbally inflict pain.  It may not, but the Ten Commandments do.  The Ten Commandments were given to Moses and his people as they were entering a new experience of freedom – for the first time.  After generations of being in slavery, the Jewish people needed some guidelines for how they could live together in community.  The last six commandments – honor your parents, do not kill, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, or covet; in effect, no killer statements (or actions)  – have become foundational to our western legal system.   Don’t hurt one another. One of the exercises we engaged in on those youth group retreats decades ago is to come up with some norms for how people can best get along in community.  Invariably they came up with a list that nearly matched those six commandments.

A question before us, as these court cases involving Donald Trump unfold, is whether or not we want to live together in community.  And if so, can we refrain from making killer statements out loud?  No doubt we will make them silently, because our anger and resentment is being endlessly kindled by the conflict entrepreneurs who show up everywhere. 

Some of this is about us versus them.  But much of it is about us versus me.  Do I have the right to say what I want, even if it is intended to hurt or even psychically maim someone else?  Do I have the freedom to own as many guns as I want, bring them wherever and however I want, and use them without challenge? 

To my mind, the us versus me is an ongoing battle (yes, battle) for our national soul.  It is wrenching.  Many of us wish it would just all go away.  It won’t.  And it shouldn’t.  As a people, we need to work this through, hard as it is.  Part of the work is to keep our killer statements to a minimum, for they destroy psyches (fragile or not) and eviscerate the integrity of the speaker.  We can do better.

 

 

 

Palm Sunday: Two Very Different Demonstrations of Power

They came into the city through separate gates, almost at the same time. The first was a procession that demonstrated power: Pontius Pilate’s power, backed by all the forces of the Roman Empire. The second procession was smaller, feeble by comparison, and it...

Personal and Systemic Racism: A Critical Difference

“Personal racism has gone down”, a wise colleague told me recently, “but institutional racism has gone up.” This is both good and bad news.The good news is that over the decades of my lifetime more and more people have become increasingly sensitive to the issues of...

Privilege Can Drown Out Pain

“The secret to white privilege is that if you don’t want to hear something, you don’t have to,”  my mentor Ed Rodman said in a video retrospective:  “A Prophet Among Us”...

Dealing with Psychic Lactic Acid

I was about six strokes from the finish of a 100 yard butterfly race in an age-group competition this past weekend when my arms gave out.  The last two strokes looked like I was drowning. I could barely get my arms out of the water.  Fifty-five years ago I was a...

Empathy: A Foil to Self-Righteousness

Where’s the empathy?  As yet another message, order, and policy change comes blasting out of the White House, accompanied by fraudulent statements and outright lies, I keep asking –  and many of us are wondering -- where is the empathy for those who have been fired,...

Saying Yes During a Torrential Rain of No

How can we say yes when we are pummeled with so many nos?  No to immigration, no to Ukraine, no to federal workers, no to climate care, no to the teaching of racial history, no to trans people, no to anything that has to do with...

Ep 21 – “Faith and Justice” with Rev. Jim Wallis

In this episode we welcome Jim Wallis, a writer, teacher, preacher and justice advocate who believes the gospel of Jesus must be emancipated from its cultural and political captivities. Jim and I discuss his faith journey, his current role as the Desmond Tutu Chair for Faith and Justice at Georgetown University, lessons he learned from Bishop Tutu in South Africa, the difference between hope and optimism, and the importance of integrating faith with the pursuit of justice.

Guidelines for Wednesday Vigils and for Sabbath Fast

This Wednesday, Ash Wednesday, I am hosting an hour-long noon vigil at a prominent intersection in Jaffrey, New Hampshire.  Several people have said they will join me.  We will be holding two signs:  one that says, “What does the Lord require of you?” and the other,...

Proposing a Sabbath Fast from Food, Finance and Media

Like it or not, we are beholden to the production/consumption system.  Some years ago I read that Americans receive something on the order of a thousand messages a day, from some electronic device, enticing us to purchase certain medications, buy this car, fly to this...

Truth is For Sale

Truth is for sale.  As directives and orders and policy statements continue to rain down on the country – and indeed across the ocean to Europe and beyond -- the thread that emerges is that truth is a commodity that gets bought, sold and traded in the marketplace. ...
Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join my mailing list to receive the latest blog updates.

You have Successfully Subscribed!