Freedom of What Now?

Some people have too much time on their hands. Take for example, the Italian website lampooning the German Pope by suggesting he's a Nazi. Apparently, this is funny. Nevermind the inappropriate nature of it, nevermind the fact that the memory of the Nazis is one that has rightly held a special place of infamy. More interesting though, is the fact that when people try to do something about it, the red flags for the defense of Free Speech perk up instantly.

Even the head of the Italian Press Union admits that its wrong...but ultimately free speech wins out when it comes to priorities: "I do not agree with the message's content, in fact I find it very serious, but press freedom cannot be called into question," he added.

My question is: why does it seem impossible to discuss limiting the scope of "free speech" in a free society? Not that I am opposed to Freedom of Expression--I believe that Free Speech is requisite for a free society--but does that translate into unrestricted, uncensored, irresponsible freedom or nothing at all? Can there not be a way of setting parameters, establishing values, that still allows for freedom but carries with it the understanding that there is a responsibility where freedom is involved? Why does our own society protect the Freedom of Speech above all others? Doesn't it seem logical that there is a better, stabler type of freedom when there are standards and values which are respected--other then merely the standard and value of "freedom"?

Ironically, the people that staunchly defend the right to say whatever you want as essential to democracy don't feel the same way about, say, the right to bear arms. While on the one hand, it is restrictive and instrusive and oppressive to put any limitations on what people say, on the other hand those same people frequently propose the limitation of the kind of weapons that are available to the citizens of this free society. Now, I'll admit that it seems logical that for safety's sake you don't allow certain types of weapons to be available to the general public--on a larger scale, the fewer people who possess large scale explosives, the better...but why doesn't that translate when it comes to the idea of regulating speech? Historically speaking...words have effectively caused much more damage then any weapon. Hitler himself didn't come to power through force of arms, but through very powerful words. Yet the Freedom of Speech receives carte blanche in our society--attack it with any kind of limitation and you attack the very fiber of our society somehow.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While the Freedom of Speech is certainly covered in that sentiment, surely it was never intended to mean "anything goes".

The irony that I say all this on a blog (the current popular medium of the unrestricted Free-speaking society) is not lost on me...but hey--its my right.