Speech isn't free

Reading the interview with Stanley Fish made one thing very clear to me: there is really no such thing as completely free speech. Though this may seem obvious to some people and sacrilegious to others, I think coming right out and saying it makes all discussion that comes after it a lot more sensible. The ideal set forth in the United States Constitution is just that—an ideal. Not a reality. Fish tries to explain Milton’s exclusion of Catholics from his world of free speech, and his explanation makes some sense, but he could have done the same thing in a much more simple way. All he had to say was that it is simply impossible to guarantee freedom of speech for all people at all times. To protect one person’s right to free speech, it is often necessary to restrict someone else’s. Any arguments in favor or against any sort of censorship that ignore this fact aren’t based in reality. One could even argue that simply allowing someone to talk in itself takes away another person’s opportunity to express themselves, thereby taking away their free speech. Speech is never free; there are always consequences. The same extends to school curriculums. Even if a teacher is given the freedom to teach any book he or she wants, every single book other than the ones he or she chooses is being censored in a way by omission. I don’t know exactly where this idea is taking me, but I think it’s really important to remember to adjust our expectations for how free expression can really ever be.