The recent Google quandary involving that most unfortunate rendering of Mrs. Obama led to many interesting articles about the invisible line between freedom of speech and profiting from indecency against another person (or group of persons).
Among the more intriguing conclusions is that those who exercise their freedom of speech should do so at the price of their anonymity. As such, the community can likewise exercise their freedom of speech in response…sort of a market incentive system, it seems.
So what exactly would happen if the offensive content were accompanied by the name, address, business, and email of the person who created it? How would their personal freedom be enhanced or restricted based on their contribution to the “self-discovery” of society? How does a social medium enhance or restrict the inalienable rights so preserved in our nation’s constitution by our infinitely wise founding fathers?
I suppose that the founding fathers also had an issue with anonymity. By virtue of their signature on the declaration of independence, they were willing to pay for their freedom of speech with their lives. This singular act is what empowered the document most. They bet their skin to preserve their oppressor’s freedom of speech regarding the same matter of independence. Today we call that courage but in most communities it is common practice:
