Megan Giles Cooney | Columnist
Many Americans are philosophically in the political middle, open to hearing a range of views before forming their opinions. That’s where I strive to land when writing commentary.
Practicing the patience of listening to varied voices, even those we disagree with, creates an opportunity to meet in the middle.
In this light, I don’t understand why some people are being fired for expressing their thoughts on conservative activist Charlie Kirk in the aftermath of his tragic assassination. He embraced the First Amendment rights to speak out and discuss differences.
Free speech is a pillar of our democracy. No one should be murdered for it. But I also believe that no one should be fired for practicing it within the boundaries established by the Supreme Court.
Due to technology, we are far past the age when we relied on a small group of media outlets for our information. We have an almost unlimited ability to read, watch or hear opinions from nearly every point of view. As messy as it is, this is our current media environment in the spirit of free speech.
There is an overload of contrasting voices roaming the internet these days, but I support the right to hear them — and then to choose whether to accept or reject them.
It is an overstep for our government to pressure organizations to silence free speech or seek out for retribution those who it considers unfriendly to a political viewpoint.
The Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association clarifies: “The First Amendment prohibits the government from relying on the threat of legal sanctions and other means of coercion to censor disfavored speech.”
The Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that standard last year in a case won by the National Rifle Association against a former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (Maria Vullo), who had coerced financial companies to sever ties with the NRA.
Citing a precedent case decided 60 years earlier, the high court said, “Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.”
So, let us hear from Jimmy Kimmel, the ABC talk show host suspended indefinitely for a monologue on political tensions after the death of Charlie Kirk. Let us also hear from those who support decisions to fire employees for speech considered unacceptable.
You may not agree with either viewpoint, but they have the constitutional right to be heard. Silencing criticism is dangerous. Left-leaning voices are today’s target, but if we establish a precedent, another time right-leaning voices will be silenced.
I want to hear what people think and then let me decide.
Megan Giles Cooney is a columnist for the Traverse City (MI) Record-Eagle. Reach her at megan.cooney1@gmail.com.
