COLUMN: Freedom of speech under attack

Beginning in the 20th century, the Supreme Court of the United States began shaping the definition of free speech.

Freedom of speech was restricted to preclude hate speech, some forms of obscenity or pornography, libel and other types of speech which were deemed malicious or otherwise harmful.

Still, for the most part, Americans, perhaps more so than anywhere else, have enjoyed the freedom to express ideas and opinions without fear of reprisal.

This freedom though has very pronounced limitations which are more restrictive than most people realize.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of meeting Beth Whitehead. Ms. Whitehead found herself at the center of an investigation by the Department of Homeland Security after she made a joking remark expressing her exasperation with the digital television transition.

After the incident, Ms. Whitehead said she wondered if she still had the freedom of speech. She does, but perhaps not as much freedom as she had a few years ago.

Since 9-11, the personal liberties of Americans have been infringed upon in an unprecedented way. While we attempt to justify ceding these freedoms under the guise of protecting the nation from terror attacks, things have gone too far when a 78-year-old woman cannot joke with an FCC employee without being considered a terror suspect.

Here in Barrow County, other people have been similarly persecuted for exercising free speech.

An 84-year-old retired nurse was imprisoned for six hours after a sheriff’s deputy decided the woman was a threat to herself due to an offhand remark. The woman, a victim of identity fraud, had called the sheriff’s office for help after months of harassing phone calls from a collection agency. Stressed and upset with the ongoing harassment, the woman made an offhand remark about saving her pain pills for the next time the collection agency called.

The next thing the woman knew, an ambulance was in her yard and she was forcibly taken to the hospital.

The deputy, believing that the woman was suicidal, took her into custody for a psychiatric evaluation.

The woman was not allowed to lock the doors to her house, notify her neighbors or take any of her personal belongings.

For six hours, she was held in a room at the hospital and was not allowed to leave or make any calls – even to her own doctor who was at the hospital at the time.

Eventually she was evaluated and released to family members after professionals determined that she had no intention of killing herself.

The woman still does not understand how a deputy who seemed so friendly and helpful could have taken her into custody over a casual remark about a Tylenol 3 pain pill.

On top of everything else, the woman was charged approximately $2,000 for the medical evaluation conducted during her involuntary psychiatric incarceration.

Though insurance paid the majority of it, the woman still has a bill outstanding which she refuses to pay since she did not desire, need or request the medical services. There are certain instances when limitations on speech may be appropriate. However, when speech is not violating the rights of others or posing a serious or imminent threat, why should average law-abiding citizens be subjected to federal investigations or imprisonment? What happened to these two Barrow County ladies should serve as a cautionary tale.

No doubt some will say these women brought these events upon themselves. Before judging these two ladies though, consider if you have ever made a joke or comment that if misinterpreted or taken out of context could have been perceived as a threat to yourself or others.

If the thought of analyzing every statement or sarcastic remark that you have ever made or ever will make to determine whether it could be deemed threatening or incendiary if overheard makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps you truly understand how much freedom of speech you have.

Kristi Reed is a reporter for the Barrow Journal. You can reach her at kreed@barrowjournal.com.