The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

The First Amendment protecting free speech has been in the news a lot  in the wake of the recent controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning 100 years of precedent. The decision, which opens the door for big corporations to spend massive amounts of money on behalf of favored candidates, brings to mind the aforementioned, an often misquoted statement by Oliver Wendell Holmes—a predecesor of current Chief Justice, John Roberts.

As someone who lived and prospered under free speech protections as an investigative reporter, I am a strong advocate of the First Amendment. In context, Holmes’ famous quote both protects and cautions us about free speech—a freedom that differentiates our nation from most other countries. 

I suspect that Justice Holmes may have been more harsh in defining the bounds of free speech if he had listened to the equivalent of contemporary AM radio in those days, or viewed something similar to Fox “News.” Don’t get me wrong. I believe everybody is entitled to voice opinions, even when I don’t agree (a code word for saying they are obviously wrong). That’s a joke, family. Lighten up.

Anyway, when it comes to the three wing-nut stooges—Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity, as well as several other broadcast personalities—free speech responsibilities are a matter of conscience. By spreading rumors, exaggerations, and misinformation, they exploit fear and fan the flames of discontent in America.

Before being knocked off my soapbox by hypocrisy, let me point out that I understand the anger and fear of people who have lost jobs, retirement plans and security. I also understand the Limbaughs of the airwaves—as well as the Olbermans on the left—earn their keep by being outrageous. Still, they succeed by deception. Not only by what they say, but by who they are.

Listeners and viewers are led to believe these characters know what the hell they are talking about. Yet, Limbaugh and Beck are former disc jockeys with no formal training in public affairs and/or government. Likewise, Hannity is an ex-bartender. Keith Olberman was a sports announcer. Rachel Maddow simply stumbled into the pontificating business. I wish I could name more left-wingers. However, the airwaves—AM radio in particular—are dominated by the right. 

Regardless, the only high-profile opinionators with provable brains are Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, a Harvard graduate who majored in assholism, and Rhodes scholar Maddow. She has a doctorate in philosphy. How many help wanted ads are there for philosphers? I would mention Harvard graduate Lou Dobbs, except his CNN ranting led him to the rich people’s unemployment line.

My point is……Come to think of it, I don’t have much of a point since medical science has not developed a surgical procedure to transplant consciences. So, I can only offer advice that when the voices of doom shout fire on crowded airwaves, consider the sources. Listeners and viewers have an option of spraying water on the flames of discontent instead of  allowing the fire to heat their anger. 

The basis of most anger and resentment is fear (I studied psychiatry at Tuscaloosa, Alabama Senior High School, making me an expert). Irrespective of my expertise, I recognize that in these bad economic times anger and fear are understandable—even justifiable in many instances. The danger is that uncontrolled, these emotions can destroy us from within. I don’t want some damn failed disc jockey, ex-bartender, former sportscaster or pointy-head intellectual distorting my view of reality. Unfortunately, that seems to have happened to many folks.