Consequences of Freedom

Ozzie Guillen has made news again recently by proclaiming that he loved Cuban dictator Fidel Castro for staying in power so long. Being that Guillen is the manager of the Miami Marlins, the remark was taken none too well by the millions of displaced Cuban refugees living in Miami.

Guillen was subsequently suspended for 5 games and forced to make the apology rounds up and down Calle Ocho.

Predictably yet sadly this has led to the cries of censorship from Jen Engel, among others. The basic point of this poorly thought out offering is that by suspending Guillen, the Marlins are undermining the Constitution, the First Amendment, democracy, journalism and the fate of the civilized world.

She hits the usual liberal talking points specifically mentioning the Citizens United case and remarking that censorship by corporations is far more dangerous than government censorship. A quick recap of atrocities committed by governments compared to corporations throughout history debunk that second point out of hand.

The first point about Citizens United case just underscores the problem with the way most journalists and liberals view freedoms. They see them as belonging solely to the individual and being completely repercussionless.

In the present scenario, nobody has ever censored Ozzie Guillen. He said what he felt. He can continue to say as he feels everyday until the end of time. No police will ever arrest him, no entity can ever forcibly prevent him from speaking whatever he wants to whomever he wants, fire in a movie theater notwithstanding. But what about the Marlins? Do they not have any speech? They service a specific community that will absolutely judge then based on how they respond to one of their employees comments. In Jen Engel's world where all speech is absolutely protected, how can the team respond without committing the grave sin of "corporate censorship"? Say nothing? A sternly worded note? Might that action be construed as "the man" trying to censor someone?

The truth is that the 5 games suspension of Guillen is speech in that it conveys a a message to a target audience. The Marlins are completely protected by the First Amendment as well as Guillen is. Just because a person has the right to exercise a certain freedom does not insulate them from other entities exercising their freedoms in response. This isn't censorship it's societal interaction. To believe that somehow freedom of speech exists in a repercussion-less vacuum defies logic at every turn. The Marlins needed to convey to their fans that they in no way condone loving feelings for Castro. Suspension issued, problem solved, case closed.

The great P.J. O'Rourke said it best when he observed that "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." By making the arguments that Engel, and others, have made about the nature of free speech what they are really saying to the world is that while they are unwilling or unable to deal with the consequences of their decisions, they would still like to enjoy the ability to make them unfettered.

Sadly this is a reality that only exists in a wishful mind. If someone truly would like to live in a judgment free zone they could easily move to Guillen's beloved Cuba or Venezuela. After all, if all you decisions are made for you you can't be judged harshly for your actions. If you want to continue living under the freedoms our founding fathers laid out, then put on your big boy pants, take your medicine and learn to own up to your freely arrived at decisions. For better or worse.