Supreme Court Ruling on "Free" Speech

I heard the news about the latest Supreme Court Ruling on "Free" Speech.  Why do I put "free" in quotes?  It is because, when one looks at the world of "do's and don'ts" through the eyes of personal responsibility, nothing is free.  One makes choices with the aid of her/his judgment about the risks and/or benefits to oneself and others before acting in ways he/she would consider "responsible."  It would be "irresponsible" of me to call  my boss a jerk, whether or not I believe it's true.  It would be "responsible" of me to weigh my words when speaking to a friend or relative at a funeral of someone who died suddenly in horrific circumstances  (such as suicide, homicide, or a freak accident). 

We look ahead. We "watch" what we say. Old proverbs that warn us about how to use or not use speech are common. "Look before you leap."  "A fool utters all his mind."  "A prudent man thinks before he speaks."

While I understand that, according to our constitution, we have to protect even what may be deemed hurtful speech, what I am concerned about is this:  The boundaries of what constitutes "legal" speech are much broader than the boundaries of what constitutes "responsible" speech.  And in this culture of "getting the last word," stinging sound-bites, and proud-and-messy mudslinging, the court ruling will, for sure, give some people the idea that they now have the "liberty" to say very hurtful things, and at especially inappropriate times. It's not the constitution that bothers me, its our culture.

And the irony of that is that this "legal loophole" will encourage people who happen to be very keen on "obeying" certain laws, that is, the ones that come from their religious beliefs.  Because some believe, in this example, that homosexuality is not approved of by God, and because they want others to follow that "law," even from a position of "caring for" what's best for society, they will use a platform of "lawlessness" to confidently spring forth with words that will destroy and alienate.  A "law" in their conscience may assert: "Don't say that." "It is too hurtful." "It is not the right time or place." Etc.   "What I can get away with saying" becomes the new guideline, because the law of our constitution allows it, even if the "laws" in our conscience signal a twinge.

Making those excuses to speak hurtfully and hatefully, then, is a form of "lawlessness."  Beyond that, it will not encourage the people they want to follow their religious beliefs about "God's law" to suddenly drop their views and "follow Him."  It will alienate.  It will do damage.  It will discourage those on the receiving end from ever considering those religious views.  "If I become like them, I will engage in the same hurtful, irresponsible, "lawless" behavior!" 

The ruling saddens me, because I know that in this culture some people who think very highly of themselves will be emboldened to hurt and hate others-and much of that will be in the name of "what is right."  What separates us, then, from the fundamentalist Muslims who proclaim that their brand of Islam is the only one, and who outright kill those who they consider "infidels?"  Does killing the infidels bring more people into the fold? Will hurtful speech advance the causes of those who engage in it?  I don't think so!