Freedom of Speech? Depends On Who Is Listening

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL."
~Boston Bruin’s goalie Tim Thomas on why he didn't make the customary Stanley Cup Champion’s trip to meet the President.

Freedom of Speech, one of the hallmarks of a progressive and civilized society, is an interesting specimen. This cornerstone freedom that allows me to blab incessantly on this blog is the same freedom that allows white supremacy groups to spew hate and burn crosses at leisure. Its range of influence is well documented and undeniable. Freedom of Speech can spawn revolution. It can also just piss people off. My personal stance on the topic has always been the same: I may not like what you have to say, but I defend your right to say it. The problem is, many others are not so understanding. The potential for conflict due to passionate stances on hot button issues – politics, religion, and race to name a few – has led to an often unspoken rule: In certain institutions you are not so free to speak. One of those institutions is the workplace. The other, as the recent infatuation with a certain fullback quarterback has made abundantly clear, is sport.

Sport tries diligently to make itself as marketable to as wide a variety of people as possible. Sport does this by striving for neutrality. Regardless of your race, color, creed, religion, socioeconomic status or political allegiance the spirit of competition is something everyone can rally around. In the face of the ever-present issue of race, sport prides itself in its inclusiveness. Personal views on those hot button issues are avoided at all cost in an attempt to not alienate money fans. So when an athlete suggests a book you should read or openly expresses his displeasure with the government like Bruin’s star Tim Thomas did, the sports world is shaken and uneasy – just like your office when the secretary starts dogging Mitt Romney in the break room.

I hear scores of athletes (and celebrities in general) talk about using their celebrity as a platform to speak out about the issues important to them. With each interview, locker room Q&A, and post-game presser, athletes have a captive audience of millions, some of whom admire these mere mortals with a religious-like fervor. And alas, most athletes walk the company line. They say all the right things and the only feathers they look to ruffle are those of the opposing team.

But every now and then, they defy the unspoken rule. They scoff in the face of the status quo and actually use that celebrity as a platform. With the sports world all aflutter, endlessly questioning whether or not “this is the place” for such a statement of personal belief, these individuals defiantly tell the world that million dollar contracts cannot buy their silence. Is this not what the First Amendment intends to support? Are we saying that such a basic freedom is only available to those who don’t make others uncomfortable? By shunning these people, aren’t we saying that one has the right to speak freely only as long as his audience is small and inconsequential? That once the stage becomes too big the message must become more sterile, so as to not rock the boat? I dare say yes, we are.

Of course, for prefessional sport leagues this wide inclusivity has a direct effect on their bottom line. If we alienate a group of people we lose their money. It’s just that simple. But when the media and fans condemn these guys for speaking their mind, I question why everyone is so uptight. People worry about others “forcing” their beliefs on them. I find that laughable. If you are strong in your own beliefs and the other person is respectfully expressing theirs, there should be no problem. He has the right to shout his beliefs from the rooftops. You have the right to disagree. That’s the beauty of it all. But just because his view is controversial, doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be able to express it. If you agree with Tim Thomas, that’s fine. If not, that’s okay too. But I respect a man who is willing to openly stand behind what he believes in and respectfully exercise his right to free speech, even if the status quo says “this isn’t the place for that.”