Homosapiens are among the weakest species, physically, on the planet. We can’t survive a summer heat, a winter cold, or a rain in our nakedness like the other species. In physical strength, we probably have the lowest strength to body weight ratio. However, mankind survived, despite its physical limitations, because we were united against extra-species’ threats and evolved peaceful ways to settle intra-species disputes. Others settled their intra-species disputes by physical combats; we, by rights/duties. That is why we are the strongest species on earth. However, with great strength comes great responsibility.

Even when faced with certain death, we, more than any other species, try to look out for our mates. Other species abandon theirs to save their own lives. How did we achieve this? The first step was when 2 people wanted the same thing we evolved ways to decide who gets it without physical combats. Defining property rights and the concept of exchange of goods (which is a primitive version of money) were our fundamentals. We defined my home, money, food, animals, and plants and nobody is permitted to forcefully confiscate our properties and the rest of us sided with the property owner against the aggressor. As societies evolved and grew, we evolved wings to protect these rights; order and law, as not everybody can possibly know all the issues in disputes. Now, we have two kinds of properties, private and public. Our duties take precedence over rights on public properties. And duties are what we do to protect our, and others’, rights.

Therefore, when on a public property a person can expect protection from personal abuse and violence just as s/he can on his/her own property. Further s/he has the duty not to abuse, litter, or use loud speakers as it is others’. Therefore, it isn’t freedom of ex-pression (which, in my opinion, includes the right to offend) to abuse (or pass lewd comments on) a person when on public property. However, if anybody wants to abuse me, s/he can abuse (not lie about) me on his/her private property (not visually/aurally accessible on public properties) and, of course, invite me to hear myself getting abused. I have the right to refuse to go, or if I go, have the right to leave the place to alternate properties where I need not hear the abuse. S/he can write a book abusing me, and publish it if s/he can find an interested publisher, sell it if s/he can find bookstores that are willing to sell it and customers who are willing to buy it, and air his/her views on a TV/radio channel if the owner is willing to air it. Of course, if s/he wants to use publicly owned (or co-owned) media, then the society at large can refuse to offer him/her their media of outlet to air his/her views or if the society disagrees with its co-owners withdraw its support to the organization and split.

We can keep arguing about grey areas. I personally think we use this only to retain the option to stop others from speaking what we dislike even on his/her privately owned properties. Further, based on paragraphs 1 & 2 above, violence/murders are not an option when dealing with intra-species disputes among humans, unless it threatens our and our co-beings’ physical safety. In other cases, we only have the right to jail the individuals we deem as threatening others’ rights. Violence/death becomes an option only for physical self-defense. Of course, societies can choose to ignore their fundamentals, and decide to use force. However, I am pleading to consider, nothing can escape the laws of causality. We, as always, get what we deserve. Freedom isn’t for those who spit on it.

Free Hit Counter

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------