In all of the antiwar and anti-Bush rhetoric that has inundated the American public recently, there has been a feeling of victimization by those who have seen backlash from their remarks.  Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks is a prime example.  Another good example would be when the United Way canceled an event with Susan Sarandon due to criticism from the community at large regarding her antiwar and anti-Bush rhetoric.  The ratings for The West Wing have slipped vigorously since Martin Sheen decided to become so politically active against President Bush and the Iraq war.  The list of those who claim to have had their First Amendment rights trodden upon has grown long over the last year, so why am I not worried that our freedom of speech is being eroded or taken away from us?  Because it's not.  All of the folks bitching and moaning about First Amendment violations are actually victims of their own free speech.

As strong an advocate as I am of freedom of speech, I have watched all of this with great interest which slowly turned to pity.  I was initially concerned that free speech in our country was indeed being squelched by the government, but I’m not sure that is the truth.  At least not yet, anyway.

Those complaining in the shrillest voices of First Amendment violations are those with dissenting views to the current administration and the war effort.  Those who are squelching those voices do not belong to the government, though.  They belong to the American public.

The First Amendment of the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You'll notice that there is not a single mention of protected speech, only that there will be no abridging of freedom of speech by the government.  It also does not say that anyone has to listen to or agree with what you have to say.  It simply says the government will not interfere with your practice of free speech.

I have said before that free speech involves taking responsibility for what one says, not just saying what one wishes with the hopes of no consequences.

For instance, it is not free speech if it is injurious.  This means that causing harm to another through speech is punishable through due process of the law.

Americans are similarly not guaranteed the right to threaten other people.  Again, this is not free speech, although I do not agree with that aspect of the situation (unless you’re causing harm, it’s free speech, me thinks).

Stand up in a crowded theater and yell "fire" at the top of your lungs when there is no fire and you will likewise realize that free speech doesn't cover you there.

These are just a few examples of having to take responsibility for what one says, albeit they are examples of where the law can punish you for saying things you shouldn't (normally through causing some form of harm to another, although not always).

In the same spirit of responsibility for what one says, the practice of free speech does not guarantee that there will be no consequences for what one says.

It is my right to say what I will, but the First Amendment and the Constitution in no way indicate people are protected from backlash for speaking their minds.  You see, the whole free speech thing doesn't just apply to those who agree with the majority.  Quite to the contrary, its protections are intended to enable dissent and disagreement without the government interfering, even if the dissent and disagreement are aimed at the government itself.

If you're willing to vocalize your point of view, you should always expect disagreement.  You should also expect those who do not agree with you to do what they legally can to shut you up.

This is precisely what we are seeing with Hollywood of late, yet the entertainment elite would have us believe that their First Amendment rights are being abridged simply because they are voicing dissent.

I have to respond to that by saying they're idiots who have a hypocritical view of free speech.  You see, they believe free speech only applies to them and no one who disagrees with their point of view.  In fact, anyone who exercises free speech to speak out against their point of view is somehow violating their free speech rights.

I find this entire approach to Americanism quite repulsive yet entertaining.  The Dixie Chicks were dropped from radio stations across the country when their lead singer chose London as the forum for saying she was embarrassed to be from the same state as President Bush.  She immediately apologized, of course, but the damage was already done.  It was certainly well within her rights to say what she did, but it was also within the rights of millions of Americans to destroy their CDs and boycott radio stations that continued to play their music.

All of this reminds me of Madonna's recent decision to pull her video just before it was released.  Her interview with VH1 is a perfect example of this double-standard on free speech.

You know, it's ironic that we were fighting for democracy in Iraq because we ultimately aren't celebrating democracy here.  Anybody who has anything to say against the war or against the president or whatever is punished, and that's not democracy, it's people being intolerant.  And everyone is entitled to their opinion for or against.  That's what our constitutional rights are supposed to be, that we all have freedoms to express ourselves and to voice our dissent if we have that.

Everything is taken literally and it's like this lynch-mob mentality has kind of risen up.  And people don't — people behave in a very unpredictable way.

Considering the war was supported by approximately 80% of the American public, do these people really believe that the majority is interested in listening to their diatribes and declarations?  More importantly, do they really believe that the exercise of free speech which disagrees with their exercise of free speech is really somehow a violation of free speech?

Give me a break!

I would agree with Madonna in that a lynch-mob mentality has arisen, but it's not against the public in general.  It has actually taken aim at the societal elitists who believe they should be free of injurious repercussions based on the practice of free speech.

We are indeed celebrating democracy here, despite Madonna's delusions to the contrary.  We're wallowing in it, actually, and she's just upset because the holier-than-thou entertainers have finally been knocked from their untouchable pedestals and forced to realize they're not that important in the scheme of things.  In fact, their opinions are no more important that anyone else's, and that apparently upsets them.

More importantly, they've learned that they we the little people who pay their salaries can actually have a negative impact on them — and it feels wonderful to finally be back in control regardless of political beliefs.

I think these disgustingly rich and substantially shallow people should go ahead and exercise their free speech.  When they are bashed and forced off the airwaves because a majority disagrees, they need to understand that people are exercising their free speech as they demand their music and videos and movies be removed from every medium available.

Ultimately they need to understand they're victims of their own free speech.

This can be said about anyone else claiming that their free speech has been violated simply because the public backlash against them was sudden and lethal.

Shut up about First Amendment violations and take responsibility for what you say.  Then and only then will you realize free speech is not a protection against more free speech, even when that free speech is in direct response to your own vocalization, but is instead a guarantee that the government won’t infringe upon your right.  Well, at least for now anyway.