So for my tenth and final blog, I want to discuss free speech. Every blog post, whether or not it should, always is chosen to make the most minor ripples possible. Will what I say come back to haunt me and destroy my career twenty years from now? Should I aim my discussions at a level that someone most likely to take offense will not be bothered to keep the peace? Voltaire's famous quote says, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I love this quote so much. There are stupid people out there with stupid opinions. No matter how absurd that opinion is, it is my duty, especially in uniform, to defend that person's right to be able to be as stupid as they want.
Does this mean people can say whatever they want without consequences? Absolutely not. However, they do have a right to say what they want. For example, an outspoken member of the KKK should not be allowed to head a diversity committee, while a mass shooter should not be able to decide gun legislation.
Instead of coming from the mindset of shutting down speech that upsets us, we should engage in debate. Take the mask debate during Covid, for example. There were medical experts on both sides debating the efficacy of wearing masks to stop the spread. The dissenter's opinions were pulled from almost all platforms and viewed as dangerous. People who questioned wearing masks were called murderers. In 1846, a doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis proposed hand washing to save babies' lives during childbirth. He was excoriated by the medical community. The point of all these examples is to encourage the free flow of communication. Change the mindset of people with facts and evidence.
Take, for instance, raising a child. When that child asks "why," the parent replies, "Because I said so." Does that child now have a more thorough understanding of the task they have been given, or are they resentful that they have to do something where they don't see the value of its purpose? Along the same line, protesting an event to an extreme where a speaker cannot be heard has almost the same effect. Everyone should have a voice and means to express their thoughts.
If the government were to establish a committee to control misinformation, which is ultimately in charge of heading the committee? The party in power? Elected groups? Politicians who may be corrupt from lobby money? It's a slippery slope handing over the right of an individual to say what they want to a government composed of inherently flawed people.
Just food for thought as I finish out this semester. What are yours?
![]() |
| Image Source |



