Freedom of Speech: Whose Right Prevails?

I recently read an article about a Christian man who was complaining because he had made some comments regarding homosexuals which had resulted in him losing his job. He was angry that his employer had fired him for his comments and called his former employer several names. Among his complaints, he charged that the employer was promoting a homosexual agenda by firing him for his views, which he claimed he had the rights and freedom to express under the 1st Amendment.

Today I read about a petition to force a university to re-hire a coach whom they had fired despite the coaches winning season, citing the fact the coach did not reflect the values of the university and they wanted to find someone who "better represented" them. The student who started the petition didn't think it was fair that the university had terminated the coach based on his personal life and was upset that the university had the right to do so because they are in a right to work state where the employer does not have to show cause for termination.

In both of these instances, freedom of speech is the central issue, however, in both instances the "injured" party doesn't take into consideration the rights of the others involved. They want THEIR rights but they don't want to allow others to have, or exercise those same rights and privileges and freedoms.

So, where do our rights to freedom of speech and expression end and the rights of others to freedom of speech and expression begin? We all want the right to speak our minds, to have our say, without restriction. But in doing so, where do we draw the line in limiting what others have the right to say in opposition? Or in what situation do others have the right to limit or even prevent us from speaking our opinions freely? It is definitely a difficult question to answer and an even more difficult quandary to be in.

Many people feel that they are "right" so therefore they have the right to speak their mind without restriction. They fail to recognize those of the opposing opinion also believe themselves to be "right" and believe they have the same right to speak without restriction. With each side believing themselves to be right, neither is going to relinquish the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. And even though both parties consider their opposition to be wrong, in some cases it could happen that neither side is actually wrong.

In the instances presented at the beginning of this blog, the gentleman who lost his job does, indeed, have the right to say what he feels is right and wrong according to his beliefs and morals, however his employer also has the right to limit what may be said in the workplace, therefore the termination of the employment would be legitimate. As for the coach losing his job, again, the university was within its rights to terminate that coach. No matter how the student feels, the university is located in a state where no cause is necessary for terminating an employee. If the person in charge of the hiring and firing of that coach didn't like the tie the coach was wearing that day or the way the coach parted his hair, they are allowed to fire the coach even for those silly little reasons in that state. We may believe it was fair, but that doesn't matter: they have the right.

The first amendment guarantees us the right to speak freely but we also have the responsibility to speak responsibly at the time and in the place that is appropriate.