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.




We Are Spiritual Beings Having a Human Experience

People often tell me, with some commitment and considerable pride, that they are spiritual.  That they have moments— on a mountain or at the seashore, or have created spaces in their lives, where they feel a deep connection with the world, each other — and a divine...

The Disruption of Protest

I was profoundly irritated, the intensity of which surprised me.  I was watching the semi-final US Open match between Coco Gauff and Karolina Muchova.   I was relaxed and enjoying their skill and passion, and silently hoping that some of the former might rub off on...

The Problem of Evil

Evil is a problem. And for millenia, philosophers, theologians and novelists have grappled with this problem: what is evil, how did it start, why does it exist, how do we respond? It has been, and continues to be, a confounding intellectual and emotional challenge....

Woke and Born Again: Problematic Bookends

In 2009 journalist Bill Bishop wrote a compelling book, The Big Sort:  Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing us Apart.  Bishop makes the case that over the past several decades people have been living, working, worshipping and vacationing in places...

The Challenge of Living into Adaptive Challenge

“Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke,” Office of Management and Budget Director Bert Lance said at a Congressional hearing in 1977.  I don’t remember what the hearing was about, but along with millions of others, I easily recall the phrase.  Most of us don’t refer to it...

Ep 3 – “Melodies of Reconciliation” with John Wood Jr.

John Wood Jr. joins to discuss his “unorthodox path to Christianity” and his pathway to working as the National Ambassador at Braver Angels

The Journey to Truth

“What is truth?”  Pilate asks Jesus. (John 18:38)  I think Pilate really wanted to know.  At that time and place, truth was in short supply.  The world Pilate lived in, and had authority over, was in constant tension.  The higher-ups in Rome didn’t care what Pilate...

Challenging Congressional Legislation and the Importance of Lament

“It’s putting purity over progress”, one commentator wrote in response to the Congressional Freedom Caucus’ amendments to the Defense Appropriation Bill.  While the legislation barely cleared the House, analysts have uniformly predicted that the add-ons have no chance...

Ep 2 – “Braver Angels” with David Blankenhorn

This week I had the chance to talk with a friend of mine, David Blankenhorn, about his passion for building bridges of understanding and helping people find common ground.

A Movement Created in Gettysburg

  “You are the largest volunteer organization in the world,”  Jonathan Sacks remarked to an audience of 1000 at the conference of Anglican bishops in 2008, held in Canterbury England.  “You have to stay together for the sake of the rest of us”, he pleaded,...
Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join my mailing list to receive the latest blog updates.

You have Successfully Subscribed!