You Can Say It. But You May Have To Defend It.

Freedom Of Speech: Yes. Consequences: Also Yes.

I am a firm believer in the First Amendment.

In my line of work, I had better be.

The ability to criticize elected officials, question authority and speak openly about matters of public concern is one of the foundations of this country. People should be able to voice opinions, challenge government actions and engage in vigorous debate.

But somewhere along the way, many people seem to have confused freedom of speech with freedom from consequences.

A few weeks ago, national attention focused on an incident involving a Louisiana sheriff and one of his longtime critics. After years of public attacks that reportedly expanded to include members of the sheriff’s family, tensions finally boiled over into a physical confrontation. The sheriff was arrested. The critic was hospitalized. It was a bad outcome for everyone involved.

But that is not the consequence I’m writing about today, although I sometimes wonder why incidents like that do not happen more often.

The internet has created an army of keyboard warriors willing to say things online that they would never say face to face with another person. The attacks seem to become more personal, more aggressive and more reckless every year.

The consequence I am talking about is libel.

I have spent my adult life around newspapers. One thing reporters learn pretty quickly is that there is a difference between hearing something and proving something.

The internet has made that distinction a lot easier to ignore.

Today anybody with a phone, a social media account and a strong opinion can reach thousands of people with the push of a button. That can be a wonderful thing.

It can also be dangerous.

In recent weeks I have seen some extraordinary accusations posted online. Some were presented not as questions or opinions, but as statements of fact. The writers appeared absolutely certain of their conclusions.

The problem is the lack of evidence.

One example involved allegations of an elaborate gambling operation connected to the Panola County jail. The article read almost like a federal indictment, complete with detailed accusations and references to alleged cover-up.

The problem was there was no indictment sourced in the article.

No charges.

No public court filings supporting the claims mentioned in the article.

Just accusations presented with an air of authority.

That does not automatically make the allegations false. It also does not make them true.

Over the years I have worked on a lot of stories that never made it to print. Not because they were not interesting, but because I could not prove them. Sometimes the facts were not there. Sometimes the source was not solid. Sometimes there simply was not enough evidence to put something in print. It’s tough when you know something but can’t prove it. 

That is not a flaw in journalism.

That is the job.

Good journalism requires evidence. It requires documents, witnesses, records and, perhaps most importantly, a willingness to let facts lead the story instead of forcing facts to fit a conclusion.

Too often today, people start with a conclusion and then spend the rest of their time searching for information that supports it.

Meanwhile, readers are left trying to determine what is fact, what is opinion and what is speculation.

That is becoming increasingly difficult because too much of modern media has drifted away from simply presenting facts and allowing readers to reach their own conclusions. Too many outlets now spend as much time telling audiences what to think as they do reporting what happened.

The result is a public that is more divided, more suspicious and often less informed.

The First Amendment protects your right to say almost anything you want.

It does not guarantee that what you say is true.

And when someone publishes false statements that damage another person’s reputation, the courthouse may eventually become part of the conversation.

I am not worried about criticism. It comes with the job. Elected officials, sheriffs, newspaper editors and just about anyone in public life should expect criticism.

What concerns me is how quickly accusations are accepted as fact these days.

The truth still matters.

It mattered before social media.

It matters now.

The keyboard is powerful.

So is the lawsuit that may follow.