In discussions involving the topic of free speech, it is often cited that a person cannot simply yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire and then expect to not have consequences for that particular speech. Hearing that one word – “fire” – yelled out is meant to evoke a specific reaction that leads to a swift evacuation, even as it is recognized that people sometimes are hurt during that evacuation. However, society has accepted that risk if it leads to saving lives, which is why there is no punishment for yelling “fire” when there is an actual fire. When there is no fire and lives are not endangered, then instigating a panicked evacuation can needlessly place people at risk, which is a behavior that society cannot condone.
In nearly every other form of speech, the hearer has the opportunity to not only take into consideration the message, but also the messenger and the other contextual issues that might shape the proper understanding of that message. Some people are masters of sarcasm, others question, and others tend to be serious, so the same phrase uttered by three different people might have three different meanings. When we are engaged in face-to-face conversation, we can read the body language, interpret the delivery, and weave into those contextual clues the actual words that were expressed. It takes our full attention to determine the proper response in a situation, realizing that sometimes the proper response may be no response whatsoever.
However, in the case of the shouted word “fire”, it doesn’t matter if it was delivered with panic or calm, by a person known as a joker or always serious. If lives are to be saved, there cannot be a deliberation period to first discern whether the person was trustworthy or not. That one word requires a reaction, not a response. Yet there aren’t many other situations where we must react immediately to someone else’s exercise of free speech. Frankly, in most cases, we do ourselves a disservice by reacting instead of responding. Eliciting a reaction may be exactly what someone else wants – not for purpose of dialogue or intellectual discussion, but to engage on an emotional or less thoughtful manner. And in case you haven’t noticed, we need more serious and deliberate conversation today, and less emotional and reactional communication.
Our world today seemingly encourages reaction. Cell phones make us instantly available to everyone, to the point where we are agitated if someone takes a while to respond to our text, email, or phone call. Social media seems to provoke us to hit the “comment” button. Traditional media constantly prays on our emotions, trying to get us worked up. But the reality is that we don’t have to react. We can pause for a moment, take a breath, say a prayer, consider the issue more broadly, and consider if a response is wise. Right now, it seems like too many people are yelling “fire” in a crowded theater just to watch the ensuing panic and mayhem. However, unless you are actually sitting in a crowded room, you don’t have to react just because someone wants to watch you run around. You can decide to respond with a voice of reason, if a response is warranted.
Kipling wrote about the importance of being able to keep your head when all about you are losing theirs. Seems to me that this might be a good time to step back, keep our sanity, not lose our heads, and resist the urge to react. Peace and blessings – Pastor Aaron